Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Black Magic Motion Picture Ltd vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 November, 2010
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
25.11.10 In the High Court at Calcutta
ss Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
A.S.T. No. 1735 of 2010
M/s. Black Magic Motion Picture Ltd.
v.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr Arunava Ghosh
Mr Anant K. Shaw
Mr Atarup Banerjee
Mr Krishnendu Bhattacharyya ...for the petitioner.
Mr Sandip Srimani
Ms Chhabi Chakraborty ...for the State.
In view of urgency prayer has been made to move this art.226 petition as
an unlisted motion. I am of the view that the prayer should be allowed.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of C.E.O. Nandan & Jt. Secretary,
I&CA Department dated November 23, 2010 (at p.24) directing change in show
time of the petitioner's film: "STHNAIYA SAMBAD".
For screening the film using Nandan-I accommodation the petitioner
applied to the authority. By an order dated August 12, 2010 requisite permission
was granted to screen the film at 4 p.m. and 6-15 p.m. on and from November
26, 2010. The formal order of allotment (at p.18) was issued on November 15,
2010. The order contains a condition that the authority reserves the right to
discontinue the screening of the selected film under exceptional circumstances
without assigning any rhyme or reason whatsoever.
It is evident from the impugned order that the authority issuing it has not
exercised the right under cl.6 of the order dated November 15, 2010.
Mr Ghosh appearing for the petitioner has argued that the order is without
any authority of law. Mr Srimani appearing for the respondents has submitted
that it is not known how the petitioner will suffer prejudice if one show time is changed and the other show time is marginally changed. He has said that for accommodating a film on Tagore the authority has issued the order changing the show time of the petitioner's film.
After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the case, I am of the view that it will be appropriate to admit the petition and make a restraining 2 order. My tentative opinion is that the authority issuing the order had no authority to issue it. I am also of the opinion that absence of interim order is bound to cause a greater loss and prejudice to the petitioner than the loss and prejudice, if any, the respondents may suffer because of a restraining order.
For these reasons, I permit the petitioner to move the petition as an unlisted motion. The department is directed to give permanent case number at once. The petition is admitted. Operation of the order dated November 23, 2010 is hereby stayed. It is made clear that nothing herein shall prevent the parties from amicably settling the matter.
The respondents shall file opposition within a fortnight; reply, if any, shall be filed by a week thereafter. Liberty to mention the matter for out of turn hearing. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)