# THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, AJMER .· v. BRTJ NIWAS .OAS

- **Citation:** [1963] 2 S.C.R. 145
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, N. Ra.Jagopala Ayyangar, T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-chief-commissioner-ajmer-v-brtj-niwas-oas-2660
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Oinemalograp\ Films-Indigenous films-Cultural filmsEzhibilion .<>f-Condit-ion of license-f."!'otification-T'ires ofCintma1ograph .-let, 1.952 (Act. 37 of 1952), s. 12(4).
----
The rrspondent was an exhibitor of films in a public
cinema theatre. u •. der 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
~ 11approvcd film" should be sho\.\·n at every performance an<l
that film• produced in Indi• and certifie<l hy the Central
19~1
Munisipal
Corpo,.ati1n •f
,; 1Ibalp-rr
v.
Stal• oJ
Madhya Pradc•h
19(;;,;,
Thi Chi•/
Co . .,,mi••ion,r, Ajm,r
'·
BriJNiwas Du
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963]
Government as Cultural films wiH be deemed to be "approved films".
In condition No. 22 of the license issued to the
respondent the above terms pf the notification \••ere substantially 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 vire• of s. 12(4), the notification and the conditions
in the license. The main contention was thats. 12(4) comp·
rised 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 Co•."t 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 Hig/l Court.
The sole
question
before the Supre111e Court was
whethrr the notification an<l condition No. 22 v-.•ere valid
within the terms of'· 12(4).
1
•
.•
Held, that the words "indigenous films" are gt"neral and
unqualified in their contrnts and n1ust incJude in their ordi_ _.
nary and accepted
sen~e cultural as "·ell as other filnt'L
To
read the words "indigenous films'' as meaning" indigenous
films'
1 other than cultural fihns would be to cut do\-\'n the
plain and ordinary s~nse of the Wllr<ls and to imp:lrl into the
c:nactment
word~ which arr: not there.
Tbc court \vould
proceed on the basi-. that the
L~gislature meant prcciseJy
what it said. The wqrds 'produced in Tndia' in the impugnr:d notification and condition !\":"o. 22 are not to he read as
a qualification ann~xed to the first category of films but
re~erablc to the second category and would be perfectly
•
intra.,;,., under s. 12(4).
The notification in so far as it requires that cultural
films should have been produced in India is within'· 12(4)
and condition No. 22 which has been framed in accordance
therewith is vaJid.
Crvn. APPEi.LATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 310 or 1961.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
May 14, 1958, of th« J:ajasthan High Ccmrt (Jaipur •
2 S.C.R ..
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 appel-
!ents 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 oinematograph films that at
every performances open to t

## Text

.. ·-
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
145
the land of which it continued in possession under
that grant was not one by the State Government or
that the State Government had not the authority to
make the grant. If such contention ie both not
open to the C01;poration and not tenable on the
merits, it would
follow
that
the
impugned
notification was fully justified by the provisions
under s. 81 of the Jabalpur Corporation Act.
We therefore hold that the impugned notifi·
cation was valid, though for reasons very different
from those on which its validity was sus.tained ·by
the learned Judges of the High Court: The appeal ·
fails and is dismissed. In view however· of the
concession made by the respondent before. the
High ([Jourt which misled the learned Judges we
consider it proper to direct that each party ·should
bear its costs throughout.
Appeal dismissed.
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, AJMER .·
v.
BRTJ NIWAS .OAS
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,
K. N. WANCHOO, N. RA.JAGOPALA AYYANGAR .
and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.)
Oinemalograp\ Films-Indigenous films-Cultural filmsEzhibilion .<>f-Condit-ion of license-f."!'otification-T'ires ofCintma1ograph .-let, 1.952 (Act. 37 of 1952), s. 12(4).
----
The rrspondent was an exhibitor of films in a public
cinema theatre. u •. der 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
~ 11approvcd film" should be sho\.\·n at every performance an<l
that film• produced in Indi• and certifie<l hy the Central
19~1
Munisipal
Corpo,.ati1n •f
,; 1Ibalp-rr
v.
Stal• oJ
Madhya Pradc•h
19(;;,;,
Thi Chi•/
Co . .,,mi••ion,r, Ajm,r
'·
BriJNiwas Du
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963]
Government as Cultural films wiH be deemed to be "approved films".
In condition No. 22 of the license issued to the
respondent the above terms pf the notification \••ere substantially 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 vire• of s. 12(4), the notification and the conditions
in the license. The main contention was thats. 12(4) comp·
rised 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 Co•."t 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 Hig/l Court.
The sole
question
before the Supre111e Court was
whethrr the notification an<l condition No. 22 v-.•ere valid
within the terms of'· 12(4).
1
•
.•
Held, that the words "indigenous films" are gt"neral and
unqualified in their contrnts and n1ust incJude in their ordi_ _.
nary and accepted
sen~e cultural as "·ell as other filnt'L
To
read the words "indigenous films'' as meaning" indigenous
films'
1 other than cultural fihns would be to cut do\-\'n the
plain and ordinary s~nse of the Wllr<ls and to imp:lrl into the
c:nactment
word~ which arr: not there.
Tbc court \vould
proceed on the basi-. that the
L~gislature meant prcciseJy
what it said. The wqrds 'produced in Tndia' in the impugnr:d notification and condition !\":"o. 22 are not to he read as
a qualification ann~xed to the first category of films but
re~erablc to the second category and would be perfectly
•
intra.,;,., under s. 12(4).
The notification in so far as it requires that cultural
films should have been produced in India is within'· 12(4)
and condition No. 22 which has been framed in accordance
therewith is vaJid.
Crvn. APPEi.LATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 310 or 1961.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
May 14, 1958, of th« J:ajasthan High Ccmrt (Jaipur •
2 S.C.R ..
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 appel-
!ents 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 oinematograph 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 nearest
lower or higher approximation thereto.
(Z) Only such films produced in India as
are•ce1·tifi d by the Cent;ral Government with
the j.H"tl\"il)U8 approval of the Film Advisory
Board, B imbay to be scientific films, films
int1>nded for education purposes, films dealing
with news, current "Vents or documentary
Th• Chi,j
Commiasioner, djmer
v.
Brij Niwa6 Das
llU
711.Chl•/
Comm/1,jo11,r, AJ11U1
••
Brij NitlKU Du
Aj)lo• J.
148 SUP.REME OOURT REPORTS [1963]
films shall be deemed to be approved films for
the purposes of these directions."
This notification came into foree on December 1,
1954. On .l\ovember 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 <ioncerned 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 e.s
regards 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 tn
exhibit film or slides unleBll they are delivered
to him at least twenty four hours' before the
entertainment at which they are to be Phown
is due to being".
•'22. (a) The licensee shall so regulate
the exhibition of cincmatograph films that at
every performance open to the public, approved films are exhibited, the approved films to
be exhibited in relation ta 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 wilh
the provious approval of the Films Advisory
Board, Bombay to ht> scientific films, films
•
'
--·
•
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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, G'>vernment of
India, made a demand on the respondent for a sum
of Rs. 274/l/· 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
Tiu Chitf
Ccmmiasioner, Ajmt
v
Brij Niwa6 Da•
AiJiarJ,
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963j
1962
contest the correctness of the decision of tho High
Camm1t.~0~:;•
1
,,j,,,,., Court insofar as it held that condition No. 15 was
.. "· '
' not valid, but he contended that the learned Judges
BraJ N.w,, Da•
were not right in holding that condition No. 22 was
.l.iy.r J.
not authorised by s. 12 ( 4) of the Act. The sole
···point for determination in this appeal is therefore
whether the notification dated November 23, 1954
.is within the terms of s. 12 (4). ·If it is, then condi.
-~· · · . tion 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 · Gov ... rnment __ 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 filins 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 deal-'
ing with news and current evonts and documentary
films or what for con<:iseness 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 consequenc
tly the provision tb11t 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
•
1 j
l I I,I,
t'
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
151
"produced 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 fi !ms into two
categories but we do not re11d them as mutually
exclusive.
The words "indigenous films", are
general and unqualified in their contents, and must
+nclude in their ordinary and accepted sense cultural as well as other films. If the two categories
of films are to be construed as mutually exclushre,
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 under lying 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. 12 (4).
We must accordingly hold that the notification
dated .'fovember 23, 1954 insofar as it requires
that cultural films should have been produced in
India is withins. 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;
-I
th1>rA will be no order as to costs in this Court.
OrMr modified.
196Z
Tire Chu/
Commissioner, ~jm1r
•
v.
Brij 1'fiwas Das
Al}ar J,