http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, AJMER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BRIJ NIWAS DAS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/04/1962

BENCH: AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA BENCH: AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. WANCHOO, K.N. AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA

CITATION:  1963 AIR  408            1963 SCR  (2) 145

ACT: Cinemotograph   Films--Indigenous  films--Cultural   films-- Exhibition  of--Condition  of   license--Notification--Vires of--Cinematograph Act, 1952 (Act. 37 of 1952), s. 12(4).

HEADNOTE: The respondent was an exhibitor of films in a public  cinema theatre.   Under  the powers conferred by s.  12(4)  of  the Cinematograph  Act  a notification was  issued  which  among other things provided that a certain Percentage of "approved film"  should be shown at every performance and ,that  films produced in, India and certified by the Central 146 Government as Cultural films will be deemed to be  "approved films".   In condition No. 22 of the license,issued  to  the respondent the above terms of the notification were substan- tially reproduced.  On the failure of the respondent to  pay a  certain amount to the Ministry of Information   for  the supply  of "approved films" the Ministry threatened to  stop further supply of "approved films" to the respondent.  There upon he filed a writ in the High Court by which he  challen- ged  the  vires  of  s. 12(4‘),  the  notification  and  the conditions in the license.  The main contention was that  s. 12(4)  comprised two categories of films, namely,  "cultural films"  and "indigenous films" and that the  two  categories were  alternative.   Therefore  it  was  urged  that   since condition No. 22 required that cultural films also should be produced  in  India the condition was bad.  The  High  Court upheld  the  validity  of the section but  struck  down  the conditions.   The  appellant  appealed to this  court  on  a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court. The  sole question before the Supreme Court was whether  the notification  and  condition No. 22 were  valid  within  the terms of s. 12(4). Held,  that  the words "indigenous films"  are  general  and unqualified  in  their contents and must  include  in  their ordinary and accepted sense cultural as well as other films. To read the words "indigenous films" as meaning  "indigenous films"  other than cultural films would be to cut  down  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

plain and ordinary sense of the words and to import into the enactment  words  which  are not  there.   The  court  would proceed  on the basis that the Legislature  meant  precisely what it said.  The words ’produced in India’ in the impugned notification  and  condition No. 22 are not to  be  read  as qualification  annexed  to the first category of  films  but referable  to  the second category and  would  be  perfectly intra vires under s. 12(4). The  notification  in so far as it  requires  that  cultural films should have been produced in India is within s.  12(4) and  condition  No. 22 which has been framed  in  accordance therewith is valid.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 310 of 1961. Appeal  from the judgment and order dated May 14,  1958,  of the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur                             147 Bench) at Jaipur Writ Application No. 237 of 1956. S.   N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, S. K. Kapur and P. D. Menon, for the appellents and Interveners. The respondent did not appear. 1962.  April 17.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J.-This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, on a Certificate granted  by that  Court  under Art. 133 (1) of  the  Constitution.   The respondent  carries on the business of exhibiting  films  in premises  called the Royal Talkies at Beawar under  licences granted   by   the   appropriate   authorities   under   the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) hereinafter referred to me the Act’.  ’Acting in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 12 (4) of the Act, the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer issued on November 23, 1954, a notification which, omitting what is not material, is as follows               "(1)  The  licensee  shall  so  regulate   the               exhibition  of  Cinematograph  films  that  at               every   performances  open  to   the   public,               approved  films  are exhibited,  the  approved               films  to  be exhibited in relation  to  other               films  at every such performance being in  the               same  proportion  as  one is to  five  or  the               Dearest lower or higher approximation thereto.               Only  such  films  produced in  India  as  are               certified  by the Central Government with  the               previous approval of the Film Advisory  Board,               Bombay  to  be scientific films  intended  for               education  purposes, films dealing with  news,               cut-rent events or documentary               148               films shall be deemed to be approved films for               the purposes of these directions."                 This   notification  came  into   force   on               December  1, 1954.  On November 24,  1955  the               District   Magistrate  of  Ajmer  being-   the               licensing authority under the Act sent to  the               respondent   a  statement  of  conditions   of               licence  revised in accordance with the  above               notification.   We are concerned in this appeal               with two of them, conditions Nos. 15 and 22.     They               are, so far as they are material as follows  :-               "15.  The licensee shall, when and so often as               the  Chief Commissioner may  require,  exhibit               free  of  charge or on such terms  as  regards

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

             remuneration  as  the Chief  Commissioner  may               determine,  films and lantern slides  provided               by the Chief Commissioner.               Provided  that  the  licensee  shall  not   be               required to exhibit at one entertainment films               or lantern slides the exhibition of which will               take  more than fifteen minutes in all  or  to               exhibit   film  or  slides  unless  they   are               delivered  to him at least twenty  four  hours               before the entertainment at which they are to.               be shown is due to being".               "22.  (a) The licensee shall so  regulate  the               exhibition  of  cinematograph  films  that  at               every performance open to the public, approved               films are exhibited, the approved films to  be               exhibited in relation to other films at  every               such performance being in the same  proportion               as  one  is to five or the  nearest  lower  or               higher approximation thereto.               (b)   Only such films produced in India as are               certified  by the Central Government with  the               provious approval of the Films Advisory Board,               Bombay to be scientific films, films                                    149               intended for education purposes, films dealing               with news, current events or documentary films               shall  be deemed to be approved films for  the               purposes of these directions. On   July  25,  1956  the  Films  Division,   Ministry.   of Information  and Broadcasting, Government of India,  made  a demand on the respondent for a sum of Rs. 274/1/- on account of supplies of approved films made to him during the  Period March  3,  1956 to August 5, 1956 and further  informed  him that  if  the above demand was not  complied  with,  further supplies of approved films would be stopped.  The respondent disputed his liability to pay the amount on the ground  that the supply was made not in pursuance of any contract entered into   by  him  but  voluntarily  by  the   Government.    A correspondence  then followed and eventually the  respondent was  told  that  if the amount was  not  paid  as  demanded, further supplies of approved films would be stopped and  the licence  cancelled.  Thereupon he filed the  .Writ  Petition under  Art.  226  of the Constitution,’ out  of  which  this present  appeal  arises,  in  the  Court  of  the’  Judicial Commissioner,  Ajmer, challenging the vires of s. 12 (4)  of the  Act,  the notification dated November 23,  1954  issued thereunder  and  conditions Nos. 15 and 22 inserted  in  the licence in accordance therewith.  The petition was heard  by a  Bench  of the High Court of Rajasthan to which  it  stood transferred    under   the   provisions   of   the    States Reorganisation  Act, 1956, and by their Judgment  dated  May 14, 1958 the learned Judges sustained the validity of s.  12 (4)  but struck down the impugned conditions Nos. 15 and  22 as  not authorised by s. 12 (4) of the Act.  It  is  against this  Judgment that the present appeal, on certificate,  has been preferred by the Government. Before  us  the  learned Additional  Solicitor  General  who appeared for the appellant did not 150 contest  the correctness of the decision of the  High  Court insofar as it held that condition No. 15 was not valid,  but he  contended  that  the learned Judges were  not  right  in holding  that condition No. 22 was not authorised by  s.  12 (4)  of the Act.  The sole point for determination  in  this appeal is therefore whether the notification dated  November

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

23,  1954 is within the terms of s. 12 (4).  If it is,  then condition No. 22 which gives effect to it is valid.  If not, both the notification and the condition must be ,struck down as ultra vires.               Section 12 (4) of the Act runs as follows               "The  Central  Government may,  from  time  to               time, issue directions to licensees  generally               or  to  any  licensee in  particular  for  the               purpose  of regulating the exhibition  of  any               film  or  class of films, so  that  scientific               films,   films   intended   for    educational               purposes, .films dealing with news and current               events, documentary films or indigenous  films               secure   an  adequate  opportunity  of   being               exhibited, and where any such directions  have               been  issued those directions shall be  deemed               to  be additional conditions and  restrictions               subject   to  which  the  licence   has   been               granted." It will be seen that the enactment comprises two  categories of films, one consisting of scientific films, films intended for  educational  purposes,  films  dealing  with  news  and current events and documentary films or what for conciseness may   be  called  ’cultural  films’,  and  the   other,   of ’indigenous  films.   The learned Judges of the  High  Court were   of  the  opinion  that  these  two  categories   were alternative  as  indicated  by  the  disjunctive  "’or"  and consequently  the provision that cultural films should  have been  produced  in India was to introduce a  restriction  in category  No. 1 which is not authorised by the statute,  and that in consequence the words 151 "reproduced in India" in condition No. 22 were  unauthorised and ultra vires. This  view does not commend itself to us.  It is  true  that the enactment classifies films into two categories but we do not  read them as mutually exclusive. The words  "indigenous films"  are general and unqualified in their  contents,  and must  include in their ordinary and accepted sense  cultural as well as other films.  If the two categories of films  are to be construed as mutually exclusive, then we must read the words "’indigenous films" as meaning "indigenous films other than cultural ’films".  That would be to cut down the  plain and  ordinary  sense of the words, and to  import  into  the enactment  words which are not there.  Such a  construction’ must,  if that is possible, be avoided.  We must proceed  on the basis that the legislature meant precisely what it said. This conclusion is further reinforced when regard is had  to the  policy underlying the enactment, which is to  encourage exhibition  of  two classes of films (1)  cultural  and  (2) indigenous,  and so far as indigenous films  are  concerned they may be cultural films or they may not be.  In this view the words "produced in India" in the impugned  notification, and  condition No. 22 are not to be read as a  qualification annexed to the first category of films, but as referable  to the  second  category, and would be  perfectly  intra  vires under  s.  1.2  (4).   We must  accordingly  hold  that  the notification dated November 23, 1954 insofar as it  requires that  cultural films should have been produced in  India  is within a. 12 (4) and condition No. 22 which has been  framed in  accordance therewith is valid.  The order of  the  Court below  will be modified to this extent.  As  the  respondent does not appear, there will be no order as to costs in  this Court. Order modified.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

152