Madras High Court
Hindu Dharma Sakthi vs The Government Of India on 7 January, 2019
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.01.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.8362 of 2011
&
M.P. No.1 of 2011
Hindu Dharma Sakthi,
(Registered Society, Reg. No.196/2010)
Represented by its Secretary,
N. Devasenathypathy,
S/o. S.V. Natrajan, Age 42 years,
2/127, 6th Main Road,
Shanmuga Nagar,
Manniwalkam, Thambaram,
Chennai - 600 048. ...Petitioners
-Vs-
1. The Government of India,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
New Delhi -
2. Central Board of Film Certification,
Sastri Bhavan, Chennai -
3.Commissioner of Police,
City Police Office,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
4. S.A. Chandrasekaran,
Star Makers,
J.S. Kalayana Mandapam,
Kumaran Colony Main Road,
Chennai - 600 026.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
5. Gemini Picture Circuit P Ltd.
No.2, Vembuliamman Koil Street,
Virugambakkam, Chennai- 600 092
6. Real Image Technology Ltd.,
78, Church Street, Balaji Nagar,
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. ...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the second
respondent to revoke the Censor Certificate for public exhibition issued
to the Tamil Feature Film "SATTAPPADI KUTTRAM" produced by the
fourth respondent and direct the third respondent to take action
against the fourth respondent under Section 295A of Indian Penal
Code, within a time frame as deem fit.
For Petitioners : Mr. D. Velmurugan
For Respondents 1,2&4-6 : No Appearance
For Respondent 3 : Mr. A. Zakir Husai
(Government Advocate)
****
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to revoke the Censor Certificate for public exhibition issued to the Tamil Feature Film "SATTAPPADI KUTTRAM" produced by the fourth respondent and direct the third respondent to take action against the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 fourth respondent under Section 295A of Indian Penal Code, within a time frame as deem fit.
2. Today, when the writ petition is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner himself has stated that now, there is nothing survives to adjudicate the matter involved in this writ petition. Hence, the relief sought for in this present Writ Petition became infructuous. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made endorsement to that effect in the writ petition.
3.In view of the submission and endorsement of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.01.2019
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order http://www.judis.nic.in 4 D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.
lbm lbm Copy to:
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi -
2. Central Board of Film Certification, Sastri Bhavan, Chennai -
3.Commissioner of Police, City Police Office, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.W.P.No.8362 of 2011
& M.P. No.1 of 2011 07.01.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in