Bombay High Court
Kasturchand Bokadi vs The Union Of India on 5 April, 2024
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
Digitally
signed by
PRAJAKTA
PRAJAKTA SAGAR 904-WPL 11107-24.DOC
2024:BHC-OS:5816-DB
SAGAR VARTAK
VARTAK Date:
2024.04.05
20:44:34
+0530
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L.) NO. 11107 OF 2024
Kasturchand Bokadi ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Union of India & Anr. ...Respondents
_________
Mr. Ashok Saraogi for Petitioner.
Mr. Advait Sethna with Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Ms. Poushali Roychoudhury and
Mr. Sandeep Raman for Respondents.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE: 05 APRIL, 2024.
P.C.
1. We have heard Mr. Saraogi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sethna, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs:-
"a. that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the quashing of the cuts suggested by the Respondents No.2 as per their letter dated 6 th March, 2024 on such terms as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
c. that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order and direction directing the Respondents No.2 to forthwith issue necessary Film Certification to the Petitioner in respect of his film titled "Teesri Begum" (Hindi) on such terms as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."Page 1 of 5
05 April, 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2024 21:27:34 ::: 904-WPL 11107-24.DOC
3. As the issue pertains to the Certification of the Film and under the powers to be exercised by the Board of Films under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, Mr. Sethna, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that an efficacious alternate remedy is available to the petitioner to file an appeal as provided for under Section 5-C of the Cinematograph Act. The said provision reads thus:-
"5-C. Appeals. - (1) Any person applying for a certificate in respect of a film who is aggrieved by any order of the Board -
(a) Refusing to grant a certificate ; or
(b) Granting only an "A" certificate ; or
(c) Granting only a "S" certificate ; or
(d) Granting only a "UA" certificate ; or
(e) Directing the applicant to carry out any excisions or modifications, may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the High Court :
Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the aforesaid period of thirty days, allow such appeal to be admitted within a further period of thirty days.
(2) Every appeal under this section shall be made by a petition in writing and shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the reasons for the order appealed against where such statement has been furnished to the appellant and by such fees, not exceeding rupees one thousand, as may be prescribed."
(emphasis supplied)
4. In so far as the issue as raised by the petitioner is concerned, the same would fall under the provisions of Section 5-C (1)(e) which is to the effect that the petitioner has been directed to carry out excisions/modifications in the film which was presented for certification and subject matter of consideration of the Board.
Page 2 of 5
05 April, 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2024 21:27:34 ::: 904-WPL 11107-24.DOC
5. Mr. Sethna in support of his objections has also drawn our attention to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 whereby the provisions of Cinematograph Act, 1952 came to be amended by deletion of the word "tribunal" as contained in Section 5-C and was substituted with the word "High Court". It is his submission that now, as the High Court has been conferred jurisdiction which is required to be exercised by the learned Single Judge, hearing such appeals, this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be entertained as the remedy provided by law is of an appeal which is a substantive proceeding.
6. Mr. Saraogi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that nonetheless the Court needs to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as such jurisdiction cannot be taken away even if an alternate remedy is provided. Mr. Saraogi has referred to the order passed by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court of which one of us (Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, J.) was a member in the case Mohammed Atiq Ibrahim Ansari Vs. Central Board of Film Certificaton & Ors.1 to contend that in fact similar proceedings were entertained by the High Court and an order was passed appointing a panel of eminent viewers to take a preview of the film and submit a report to the Court. It is thus his submission that as writ petitions are being regularly entertained by the High Court, the present petition be also entertained. However, he fairly submits that the issue of an alternate remedy of a statutory remedy was neither 1 Writ Petition (l) No.27351 of 2023, order dt. 11/10/2023 Page 3 of 5 05 April, 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2024 21:27:34 ::: 904-WPL 11107-24.DOC raised before the Court in such proceedings nor it was referred and decided in such orders.
7. We are not persuaded to accept the submissions of Mr. Saraogi. No doubt the High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can certainly exercise its discretion, and in given set of facts, entertain a writ petition. However, this would not mean that in every cause of the nature as brought before the Court by the petitioner, the High Court needs to exercise jurisdiction when an alternative, efficacious remedy has been provided to an aggrieved party, of an appeal under Section 5-C of the Cinematograph Act.
8. We find that the amendment as incorporated in Section 5-C is an amendment as brought about to the Cinematograph Act by the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021, brought into effect on 04 April, 2021 whereby the word "tribunal" as contained in Section 5-C was substituted by the words "High Court", thereby providing that an appeal against an order of the Board of the nature as provided in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 5-C, would be maintainable before the High Court. Thus, the intention of legislature is quite clear that instead of the tribunal, such issues in relation to the subject matter as set out in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 5-C need to be agitated by he aggrieved party in the proceedings of an appeal, to be filed before the High Court which would be the appellate jurisdiction. Page 4 of 5
05 April, 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2024 21:27:34 ::: 904-WPL 11107-24.DOC
9. In view of the above discussion, in our opinion, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy of an appeal as provided under Section 5-C of the Cinematograph Act.
10. We accordingly dispose of this petition permitting the petitioner to file such appeal before this Court.
11. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
12. Needless to observe that we have not examined the merits of the matter.
13. At this stage, Mr. Saraogi submits that in view of the urgency in the proceedings, the petitioner would file an appeal by 08 April, 2024. If the same is filed, the petitioner is certainly entitled to seek appropriate urgent reliefs in such appeal.
14. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.) Page 5 of 5 05 April, 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2024 21:27:34 :::