Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The writ petition was filed on 20.08.2015 pleading that the film "Grand Masti" which is having pervasive adult theme and highly objectionable content and not fit for unrestricted public exhibition is scheduled for telecast on television channel of M/s Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. (respondent No.4) on 22.08.2015 at 10.00 p.m. It is also contended that the re-certification of the said film from „A‟ to „V/UA‟ is in violation of the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the proposed telecast on television channel is not in conformity with the provisions of the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Rules made thereunder.

3. Having been prima facie satisfied that the telecast of film in question on TV channels is not in public interest, this Court by order dated 21.08.2015 stayed telecast of film until further orders.

4. In response to the notice ordered by this court, the respondent No. 3 - M/s Maruthi International (the producer of the film "Grand Masti") and respondent No. 4 - M/s Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (satellite rights holder for the film, who also owns the TV channel „&Pictures‟ (on which the said film was scheduled for telecast) entered appearance and filed CM No.19922/2015 and CM No.18838/2015 respectively seeking vacation of the interim stay dated 21.08.2015.

8. Regarding the objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction it is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the film is proposed to be telecasted all over the country, the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be ousted on a technical ground that the office of the respondents no.2 to 4 is situated at Mumbai.

9. It may be mentioned that the objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition was raised even at the stage of the admission of the petition by the learned standing counsel for Union of India and the learned counsel appearing for CBFC. Having regard to the fact that the cause sought to be espoused by the petitioner involves an element of public interest this Court rejected the said objection and thus interim stay was granted recording prima facie satisfaction that the telecast of the film in question on TV channels is not in public interest. We therefore do not consider it appropriate to allow the respondents to re-agitate the said objection. At any rate, the law is well settled that the situs of the cause of action upon which the petitioner approaches the Court and seeks issuance of a writ against the respondent is also a relevant and determinative factor to decide the dispute with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and even if a small fraction of cause of action arises within the territory in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction, it shall have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition notwithstanding the fact that the situs of the office of all the respondents is situated outside its territorial jurisdiction. Even according to the doctrine of forum conveneins it is the discretion of the Court either to entertain or to reject the writ petition depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. Coming to the merits of the case, it is clear from the counter affidavits filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 that the film in question has already been telecasted on TV channels on 25.07.2015, 01.08.2015 and 02.08.2015. The petitioner simply denies knowledge, pleading that the film was telecasted on Premium HD Channels. In view of the fact that the film was telecasted thrice much prior to the filing of the present petition, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot plead ignorance.