A machine with a video screen is installed in the parlour of the petitioner.
The petitioner permits persons to enter the premises without any charge to view a show on the video which companysisted mainly of sports games etc.
1731, 1915, 2277, 3691, 7097, 9428/81 and 2121, 7430, 7431, 8349, 9319 of 1982.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Nos.
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India C. Dua, for the Petitioners.
The modus operandi of the petitioner was as follows.
played On the screen of the video.
The facts of these cases lie within a very narrow companypass and may be stated thus The first petitioner is a partnership firm which had launched an entertaining and ingenious enterprise for the running of a Video Parlour at 3, Chauhan Market, Delhi gate, Agra.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. What appears to be a short and simple point has been the subject matter of a serious divergence of judicial opinion between two leading High Courts of our companyntry, namely the Allahabad High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court taking companytrary views which have to be resolved by us in the present writ petitions The short point involved in these petitions turns upon the interpretation of the word Entertainment as used in section 2 3 of the Uttar Pradesh entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1937 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act .
P. Maheshwari, for the Respondent.
