ORDER
1. When the miscellaneous petitions are posted for hearing, by consent of parties, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal considering the limited scope of prayer asked for in the writ petitions.
2. In W.P. No. 19052/1993 the prayer is as follows:– To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for the grant of Censorship Certificate for their picture KUTTR AP ATHIRIK Al’ (Tamil) (Cenemascope Colour) within a time limit fixed “by this court. In W.P. No. 18568 of 1993 the prayer is as follows:–
To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider the application dated 31-12-1992 of the film ‘KUTRAPATHIR1KAI’ (Tamil Feature film) within a period stipulated by this court.
3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 19052 of 1993 is the producer of the picture of ‘KUTTRAPATH1R1KAI’ (Tamil) Cinemascope colour) and the petitioner in W.P. No. 18668 of 1993 is a Distributor who has obtained the rights of distribution, exhibition, exploitation on outright lease basis for the area of the City of Madras as known in the film trade. The facts are simple.
4. Since the prayer asked for is almost similar in both the writ petitions, suffice to state the facts. The facts are as follows: — The petitioner in W.P. No. 19052 of 1993 is engaged in the production of films. It seems that he launched a Tamil film titled ‘KUTTRAPATHIRIKAI’ in July 1991 and the shooting of the picture commenced during Sept. 1991. The shooting of the picture was completed on 11-12-1992 and after the re-recording was completed, the first copy of the print was made ready on 18-12-1992. The petitioner made an application before the second-respondent for the grant of a Censorship certificate in terms of Section 4 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, in the prescribed form after observing all the formalities. The petitioner was required to project the film for Censorship on 3-2-1993 and it was accordingly done by the petitioner at Madras. The Examination Committee comprising of the Regional Officer of the Second respondent Board and four other members saw the picture on 3-2-1993. After the picture was witnessed, the second respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner on 10-2-1993 requesting him to send a print of the film immediately to the Technical Officer, Films Division, New Delhi and to the Film Facilities Officer, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi. The petitioner was not aware on what grounds the petitioner was required to send the print to New Delhi. However, in view of the directions issued by the second respondent, the petitioner personally submitted a print to the Film Facilities Officer, New Delhi with due intimation to the second respondent. A declaration was obtained from the petitioner that no alteration of any kind was made in the copy of the print of the film presented to the film Facilities Officer, New Delhi, for examination, and that the print was the same as shown to the Committee at Madras. It seems that the Film Facilities Officer as well as the Technical Officer of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry saw the film. It is also stated that the film was also seen by the Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, the Secretary Joint Secretary and higher officials of the Government of India. It is allaged that even though such higher officials had witnessed the film, the petitioner was not given any reply either granting or directing modification or refusing censorship certificate or directing modification of the film as contemplated by the Act and rules made thereunder. The petitioner has been repeatedly reminding the first and second respondents in this regard. Ultimately the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondents on 29-9-1993 with copies marked to the Minister for information and Broadcasting and the Secretary of the said Ministry. The petitioner has narrated the reasons in the letter and pointed out that there is absolutely no valid justification for the respondents to refuse to answer to the claims of the petitioner. In spite of the receipt of the said letter there has been no response from the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has come up before this court with the above said prayer.
5. The petitioner also alleges that he has made an application for the certification of the film under Section 4 of the Central Act 37/52 and that the respondents owe a statutory duty besides a public duty to act in acorrdance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules by passing necessary orders either sanctioning the film for exhibition or refusing to sanction or directing the applicant to carry out such modification in the film as it thinks necessary before sanctioning the flim for public exhibition. It is alleged that the petitioner has spent enormous money in the production of the picture which includes amounts advanced by third parties like distributors and financiers at huge rate of interest. It is also alleged that the financiers and distributors have also initiated legal action against the petitioner for not releasing the picture. The petitioner alleges that in spite of the petitioner adhered to the directions of the second respondent, there is absolutely no valid justification for the respondents to act in accordance with law and pass necessary orders. It is also stated in the affidavit that he is willing to abide by any direction or condition to effect such modifications as the respondents may thinks fit and just. The petitioner alleges that any further delay would ruin the petitioner besides affecting various others who are connected in the aforesaid pictures. The petitioner alleges that under the rules the respondents are required to act swiftly and pass necessary orders within a period of 30 days. But in the case of the petitioner nearly 10 months have elapsed since the date of application and there have been no response whatever from the respon-dents. It is also alleged that the inaction or failure on the part of the respondents is absolutely unjustified.
6. The petitioner in W.P. No. 18568 of 1993 is a Distributor of the picture who has come up before this court almost asked for the very same prayer of the petitioner in W.P. No. 19052 of 1993.
7. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. No. 18568 of 1993.
8. I have heard Mr. R. Mutbukumara-swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 19052 of 1993 and Mr. G. Vasamha Pai, learned senior Central Government Standing counsel for the respondents.
9. Though a request was made to this court to see the picture, after hearing the counsel on either side, I am of the view that such a request cannot be acceded to at this point of time. A producer of Cinematograph film in Tamil has applied for a certificate under Section 4 of the cinematograph Act, 1952. The Examination committee has to examine the film under Section 4A and make such recommendations to the Board as it deems appropriate. The certification of the film is made under Section 5A after the film has been examined in the prescribed manner. An appeal is provided for to any person applied for a certificate in respect of a film who is aggrieved by any order of the Board refusing to grant of certificate, etc. Under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 the Central Government is empowered under its own motion, at any stage to call for the record of any proceeding in relation to any film which is pending before, or has been decided by the Board and after such enquiry into the matter as it considers necessary and to make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit. This is provided for under Section 6 of the Act . which reads as follows: —
“Rcvisional powers of the Central Government: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this part, the Central Government, may, of its own motion, at any stage call for the record of any proceeding in relation to any film which is pending before, or has been decided by, the Board or, as the case may be, decided by the Tribunal (but not including any proceeding in respect of any matter which is pending before the Tribunal) and after such enquiry into the matter as it considers necessary, make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit, and the Board shall dispose of the matter in conformity with such order :–
provided that no such order shall be made prejudicially affecting any person applying for a certificate or to whom a certificate has been granted, as the case may be, except after giving him an opportunity for representing his views in the matter:
Provided further that nothing in this subsection shall require the Central Government to disclose any fact which it considers to be against public interest to disclose.
(2) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on it under sub-section (1), the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette direct that-
(a) a film which has been granted a certificate shall be an uncertified film in the whole or any part of India.
(b) a film which has been granted ‘U’ certificate or a ‘UA’ certificate or ‘S’ certificate shall be deemed to be a film in respect of which an ‘A’ certificate has been granted; or
(c) the exhibition of any film be suspended for such period as may be specified in the direction provided that no direction issued under Clause (c) shall remain in force for more than two months from the date of the notification.
(3) No action shall be taken under Cl. (a) or Clause (b) of sub-section (c) except after giving an opportunity to the person concerned for representing his views in the matter. (4) During the period in which a film remains suspended under Clause (c) of subsection (2), the film shall be deemed to be uncertified film. (5) The Central Government may. if satisfied, in relation to any film in respect of which an order has been made by an appellate Tribunal under Section 5D that it is necessary so to do in the interests of- (i) the sovereignty and integrity of India; or (ii) the security of the State; or (iii) friendly relations with foreign States; (iv) or public order or decency or morality, make such inquiry into the matter as it considers necessary, and pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit, and the Board shall thereupon dispose of the matter in conformity with such order. Provided that no such order shall be made prejudicially affecting any person to whom certificate has been granted except after giving him an opportunity for representing his view in the matter; Provided further that nothing in this subsection shall require the Central Government to disclose any fact which it considers to be against public interest to disclose.
10. From the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it is seen that the Government of India has exercised its power under Section 6 of the Act and seized of the matter. So the final decision of the Government of India has to be given under Section 6 of the Act. It is settled law a maker of a film has a fundamental right under Act 19(1)(a) of the Constitution any dispute that the power of the respondents under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act is coupled with duty and they are expected to pass orders expeditiously on any application made for censorship of film. In this case it is seen that no order has been passd till October 1993, when the petitioners had approached this Court. When the film has been seen by the Examination Committee in Madras in February, 1993, it is not possible for this court to go into the merits of the case at this stags. Whether the censorship certificate has to be issued or not by the respondents cannot be gone into at this stage. The prayer in the writ petitions also is very limited. This court surely cannot take the rote of the Censor Board and state whether the picture can be released for public exhibition or not in the absence of any order passed on the application of the petitioner by the respondents under the provisions of Cinematograph Act, 1952. Mr. Vasantha Pai, the learned senior counsel who appeared for a Distributor who has filed W.P. Nos. 18568 of 1993 brings to the notice of this court that no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in W.P. No. 19052/1993. But the counter-affidavit filed in W.P. No. 18568 of 1993 is sworn to by the Regional Officer, who is in charge of Central Board of Film Certification. However, it is seen that the counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. No. 18568 of 1993. At any rate, it is clear from the counter-affidavit filed by the Regional Officer that the first respondent is seized of the matter. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that no reply has been sent by the respondents on the application made by the petitioner under Section 4 of the Act, I think it suffice to direct the respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. No. 18568 of 1993 to pass orders on the application made by the petitioner in W.P. No. 19052 of 1993 on merits and according to law on or before 31-3-1994. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No. costs.
11. Order accordingly.