K.R.Ravi Rathinam vs The Director General Of Police on 3 December, 2014

[Cites 21, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

K.R.Ravi Rathinam vs The Director General Of Police on 3 December, 2014

2. The Petitioner has projected the present Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 to 6 to act upon his representation dated 1/11/2014 by conducting a detailed enquiry after appointing the Fact Finding Committee into the true authorship and ownership of the single story line found in both feature films 'Mullai Vanam 999' and 'Linga' so as to legalise the production and release of both on or before 12/12/2014.

3. THE RESUME OF FACTS OF WRIT PETITION:- The Petitioner is a debutant Director for the Tamil feature film 'Mullai Vanam 999' to be produced by Ranga Pon Solai Films. He was in the serial field and for the first time, he is entering into the Tamil Nadu Tinsel Film Industry as Director through the aforesaid 'Mullai Vanam 999' and further, he is the owner and author of the story, screenplay and direction.

4. According to the Petitioner, 'Mullai Vanam 999' is a story back grounding the Mullai Periyar and the construction done by 'Penny Quick' apart from National Unification of Rivers and Rivulets. The entire story was uploaded by him in the 'You Tube' a social website on 24/2/2013 itself. All the film stories are being floated in the social websites to show the ownership of films when the same is not patented at Chennai. Further, a number of new channels like Ottran Seithi, Sun Network, Kalaingar Network, Raj Network, Jaya Network, Mega T.V and Vasanth T.V telecasted the same. Also from 26/2/2013 onwards 'You Tube' floated the same in public domain.

5. On 24/2/2013 at 10.00 a.m., pooja for 'Mullai Vanam 999' was celebrated in AVM Studios which was presided over by several VIPs, Dignitaries and the shooting for his new film is to be shot from January 2015 onwards, both indoors and outdoors. Further, pre-shooting initiations were conducted around Theni ? Madurai Districts and Kerala for the past ten months while staying at Theni International Guest House along with the Producers, Artists, Cameramen and other off-screen Technicians.

6. To the Petitioner's great shock and surprise, on 2/5/2014, while browsing 'You Tube', his story was appearing in the film named 'Linga', as if produced by the Seventh Respondent directed by the Tenth Respondent, story by the Eighth Respondent and to be acted and distributed by the 11th Respondent. The aforesaid Respondents had clandestinely stolen his property from 'You Tube' and posted the same on 2/5/2014. Whereas the very same story was floated by him in the name of 'Mullai Vanam 999' as early as 24/2/2013 itself.

7. His feature film 'Mullai Vanam 999' is to be produced at the cost of Rs.3,31,20,000/- and the same is expected to fetch a commercial revenue of Rs.15 crores through his dream story and screenplay. Whereas the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 are shooting the feature film 'Linga' at a lightening speed both in Mysore, Kerala and Tamil Nadu with his stolen story 'Mullai Vanam 999'.

8. The Petitioner had invested 47 years of labour in the film industry and for the first time, his story 'Mullai Vanam 999' is to be released during Tamil New Year's day 'Chithirai 2015' whereas his maiden stolen story is to be released during 'Pongal' 2015 by the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 which will bring his entire life and future into the dark gallows for ever. Further, in 'Kungumam' magazine dated 19/5/2014, the stolen story was reproduced through the auspices of the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11.

9. The Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 have committed offences under Sections 66 B, 66 E, 72, 72 A r/w. 76 and 77 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 109, 379, 403, 420, 468, 470, 471 along with 120 (b) of IPC. The intellectual property from the 'You Tube' was stolen by the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 for illegally gaining and thereby bringing loss to his personal exchequer.

10. A complaint was preferred to the Respondents 1 to 6 on 1/11/2014 stating that all the offences committed by the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11. So far, no First Information Report has been registered by the Cyber Crime or any other authority. Hence the Petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11. Also, the Petitioner has prayed for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to take his complaint dated 1/11/2014 for the offences under Sections 66 B, 66 E, 72, 72 A r/w. 76 and 77 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 109, 379, 403, 420, 468, 470, 471 along with 120 (b) of IPC, investigate the same and file a final report before the concerned Court, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

12. THE CONTENTS OF COUNTER FILED BY R-3 (FOR HIMSELF) AND ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:- The representation of the Petitioner dated 1/11/2014 was sent by 'Registered Post' on 5/11/2014 and the same was received in his Office on 6/11/2014. The complaint was forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner, Tallakulam on 8/11/2014 vide C.No.R.4/785/57850/2014 and he forwarded the same to the Inspector of Police, Tallakulam for an enquiry. The Inspector of Police, Tallakulam, conducted an enquiry into the aforesaid Petition. During the enquiry, the Writ Petitioner/Complainant K.R.Ravi Rathinam appeared before the Inspector of Police on 13/11/2014 and sought time till 20/11/2014 due to his urgent work at Chennai. He appeared before the Inspector of Police on 20/11/2014 and gave a statement that he is directing a film in the name 'Mullai Vanam 999' and produced the invitation and photographs on the opening ceremony of the said film.

13. According to the Writ Petitioner his film 'Mullai Vanam 999' is based on Mullai Periyar Dam and Colonel J.Penni Cuick that the pooja for the film was held on 24/2/2013 at A.V.M.Studio and in that function several VIPs have participated. The events of pooja held on 24/2/2013 were telecasted in 'You Tube' and in other channels. He was doing the preparatory work for the film and intended to commence shooting from January 2014. He saw an article published in 'Kumutham' weekly dated 6/8/2014 and 'Kungumam' weekly dated 19/5/2014 and 'You Tube' and suspected that the story line of 'Linga' produced by the Seventh Respondent is similar to that of his film 'Mullai Vanam 999' and requested to stay the exhibition of film 'Linga' in the said Petition dated 1/11/2014.

14. The Writ Petition is filed for conducting a detailed enquiry after appointing a Fact finding Committee into the true authorship and ownership of the single story line found in both feature films 'Mullai Vanam 999' and 'Linga' even before the Inspector of Police commences his enquiry. The relief claimed by the Writ Petitioner is not within the limits of the Police.

15. The Petitioner had also prayed for an interim direction as against the Respondents 1 to 3 to take is complaint dated 1/11/2014 in respect of the offences under Sections 66 B, 66 E, 72, 72 A r/w. 76 and 77 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 109, 379, 403, 420, 468, 470, 471 along with 120 (b) of IPC, investigate the same and file a final report before the concerned Court pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

16. Section 66 B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with the 'Punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or communication device'.

17. Section 66 E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with 'Punishment for violation of privacy' which runs as follows:-

?Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both.

Explanation ? For the purposes of this Section -

(a). ?transmit' means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;

(b). ?capture? with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film or record by any means;

(c). ?private area? means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast;

(d). ?publishes? means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making it available for public;

(e). ?under circumstances violating privacy? means circumstances in which a person can have a reasonable expectation that

(i). he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of his private area was being captured; or

(ii). any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.?

18. Further, Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 refers to the offences in regard to the electronically sent visual image with an intent to be viewed by a person or persons of an image, videotape, photograph, film or record by any means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast. The facts and circumstances of the complaint and the statements would not attract an offence under Section 66 E of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

19. Section 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with 'Penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy' ? Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person who, in pursuance of any of the powers conferred under this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder, has secured access to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material without the consent of the person concerned discloses such electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both.?

20. Section 72 A of the Act deals with 'Punishment for disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract ? Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person including an intermediary who, while providing services under the terms of lawful contract, has secured access to any material containing personal information about another person, with the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain discloses, without the consent of the person concerned, or in breach of a lawful contract, such material to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both.

21. The offences under Section 72 and 72 A of the Acts are arising out of a contractual obligation and there is no contractual obligation between the complainant and the Respondents 7 to 11 and the averments in the complaint and the statement given by the writ petitioner would not make out an offence under the above said provisions.

22. Section 76 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with Confiscation of the computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks, tape drives or any other accessories related thereto, in respect of which any provision of this Act, rules, orders or regulations made thereunder has been or is being contravened, shall be liable to confiscation.

23. Likewise, the offences under Sections 109, 379, 403, 420, 468, 470, 471 along with 120 (b) of IPC are also not attracted in the given circumstances.

24. Section 403 relates to 'Dishonest misappropriation of property. Section 420 relates to 'Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.' Section 468 relates to 'Forgery for purpose of cheating'. Section 470 relates to 'Forged document or electronic record'. Section 471 relates to 'Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record'.

25. The Writ Petitioner has not made out any case that his story is similar to that of the story of the Eighth Respondent. The Writ Petitioner though made a pooja for a film viz., 'Mullai Vanam 999' the shooting for the film has not commenced. Even according to him, he is in the preparatory work and likely to commence the shooting from January 2015. He has not produced the story during the enquiry. Similarly, the Eighth Respondent also claim that they have not disclosed the story line anywhere. The complaint as well as the Writ Petition is filed on assumption that the story of the film 'Linga' is that of the story and the complainant has not made out any offence particularly a cognizable offence.

26. During the enquiry, the Inspector of Police, Tallakulam, examined both the parties and recorded their statements. In view of the Writ Petition pending before this Court, the Inspector of Police has not proceeded further and the Respondent Police would act in accordance with the orders of this Court.

27. THE GIST OF COUNTER OF SEVENTH RESPONDENT:- The Writ Petition is neither maintainable nor sustainable either in Law or on facts and as such deserves to be dismissed in liminie. The Petitioner has sought to invoke the jurisdiction of an inappropriate forum. He has not come out with clean hands and as such not entitled to any relief much less the relief sought for in the Writ Petition. That apart, he reserves his right to initiate appropriate legal action against the Petitioner for malicious prosecution including damages for defamation.

28. As a Producer, he had invested several crores of rupees for production of the film titled 'Lingaa' being made in Tamil with a huge star cast having the Eleventh Respondent as a lead actor under the directorial venture of Tenth Respondent on the story written by the Eighth Respondent. The said film is on the verge of wrapping up in all cinematic post production works and is scheduled to be released worldwide. Further, he denies any knowledge of the Petitioner claim that he is as debutant Director for a Tamil feature film 'Mullai Vanam 999' produced by one Ranga Pon Solai Films or that he was in the serial field and for the first time, he is entering into the Tamil Nadu Tinsel Film Industry, as a Director through the above mentioned 'Mullai Vanam 999' or that he is the owner and author of the story, screenplay and Direction. Absolutely, he has no knowledge of the Petitioner's alleged claim. Moreover, he has never seen or heard of the Petitioner.

29. Furthermore, he has no knowledge about the Petitioner's allegations regarding the story titled 'Mullai Vanam' and also he is not aware of it being uploaded in 'You Tube' or elsewhere. Likewise, he is not aware of the Petitioner's claim regarding the telecast or that it was floated on 'You Tube' in public domain from any date. In regard to the Petitioner's reference to Penny Quick, Mullai Periyar and the subject of National Justification of Rivers and Rivulets, there are umpteen stories and articles revolving the same and the Petitioner apparently seems to have erroneously concluded that he has a copy right over such a topic. Therefore, such claims of the Petitioner are totally untenable, perverse and frivolous. As per the custom and practice followed in the film industry, a person claiming that the copyright of a story authored by him has been infringed and should show that at least 13 continuous scenes shot in a feature film are similar to the story claimed to have been authored by him.

30. Continuing further, a bare reading of the affidavit filed by the Petitioner does not disclose such an allegation that the movie titled 'Lingaa' under production has 13 continuous scenes that are similar to the story claimed to have been authored by him. As such the claims of the Petitioner that his copyright is stolen or infringed is totally baseless and frivolous and clearly made with mala fide intentions. In fact, the Eighth Respondent had registered his story as early as 2010 itself and the allegation of the Petitioner that the Respondents had clandestinely stolen his story from 'You Tube' is denied.

31. He has no knowledge of the Petitioner or his activities or claims regarding his budget or expected profits. As regards the purported article in 'Kungumam magazine', no one associated to the film had ever spoken about the film's shooting or even whispered about any of the aspects of the film till date. It is surprising to note that how at all the Petitioner is comparing the story of the film 'Lingaa' with the story claimed to have been written by him as he has absolutely no access to the story or the contents of the film which itself would show that he has merely initiated a vexatious litigation on assumptions and surmises. Also that all the legal requirements to safeguard the copy right of the story and other film aspects have been complied with by them.

32. The Petitioner in a fit of deriving publicity has come forward with the present Writ Petition with an allegation inaction against himself and the Respondents 8, 10 and 11. Also, he has failed to make out a prima facie case against the Respondents. There is no balance of convenience in favour of the Petitioner.

33. THE CONTENTS OF COUNTER OF ELEVENTH RESPONDENT:- The Writ Petition is neither maintainable nor sustainable either in Law or on facts. As such, it deserved to be dismissed in liminie. Further, the Petitioner has sought to invoke the jurisdiction of inappropriate forum. Also that he has not come out with clean hands and as such not entitled to any reliefs much less the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition.

34. This Respondent has no other role in the movie other than being the lead actor. The Petitioner has made him a party on wrong assumption that he is a Distributor for M.R.T.K and VCKT areas and such an assumption is a false one. When the Petitioner has arrayed him as the Eleventh Respondent on the alleged ground that he is a Distributor has not chosen to array any of the other Distributors and this would exhibit his true colours. He reserves his right to initiate appropriate legal action against the Petitioner for malicious prosecution including damages for defamation.

35. He has been in the Indian Film Industry and in particular the Tamil film Industry for more than for decades as not only a veteran actor but also as an eminent Producer, Director, Screen Writer, Playback Singer and Story Writer. The Government of India in recognition of his services in the Film industry as a whole conferred the prestigious Padma Bhushan Award on him. The Government of India in recognition of his services in the film Industry conferred on him 'Best Entertainer of the Year' Award. He has been conferred several State Awards including 'Kalaimamani Award'.

36. He has been enjoying huge fan following, respect and regard as a matinee idol status in Tamil Nadu and all over India. He has acted in more than 100 films, most of them being especially several hit film in all South Indian languages as well as other languages including Hindi. To his credit, he has also acted in Hollywood films. He has been rated as a successful film star and as such enjoy high reputation in and around Tamil Nadu, India as well as abroad.

37. As of now, he has completed the schedule for shooting for the film titled 'Lingaa' being made in Tamil with a huge star cast under the Directorial venture of Tenth Respondent on the story written by the Eighth Respondent and produced by the Seventh Respondent. The said film is on the verge of wrapping up in all cinematic post production works and scheduled to be released worldwide.

38. He categorically denies any knowledge of the Petitioner claim that he is a Debutant Director for a Tamil feature film 'Mullai Vanam 999' produced by one Ranga Pon Solai Films or that he was in the serial field and for the first time, he is entering into the Tamil Nadu Tinsel Film Industry, as a Director through the above mentioned 'Mullai Vanam 999' or that he is the owner and author of the Story, Screenplay and Direction. Further, he has never seen or heard of the Petitioner.

39. Moreover, he has no knowledge about the Petitioner's allegations regarding a story titled 'Mullai Vanam' and also he is not aware of it being uploaded in 'You Tube' or elsewhere. Likewise, he is not aware of the Petitioner's claim regarding the telecast or that it was floated on 'You Tube' in public domain from any date. In regard to the Petitioner's reference to Penny Quick, Mullai Periyar and the subject of National Justification of Rivers and Rivulets, there are umpteen stories and articles revolving the same and the Petitioner apparently seems to have erroneously concluded that he has a copy right over such a topic. As such, the claims of the Petitioner are totally untenable, perverse and frivolous.

40. Apart from the above, as per Custom and practice followed in the film Industry, a person claiming that the copyright of a story authored by him has been infringed should show at least 13 continuous scenes shot in a feature film are similar to the story claimed to have been authored by him. A bare reading of the affidavit filed by the Petitioner does not disclose such an allegation that the movie titled 'Lingaa' under production has such 13 continuous scenes that are similar to the story claimed to have been authored by him. Therefore, the claims of the Petitioner that his copyright is stolen or infringed is totally baseless and frivolous. The story and screenplay in the movie titled 'Lingaa' was written and created by the Eighth Respondent and has nothing to do with the Petitioner's story as claimed by him. In fact, the Eighth Respondent had registered his story as early as 2010 itself and the allegation of the Petitioner that the Respondents had clandestinely stolen his story from 'You Tube' is denied.

41. In regard to the purported article in 'Kungumam magazine', no one associated to the film had ever spoken about the film's shooting or even whispered about any of the aspects of the film till date. It is surprising to note that how at all the Petitioner is comparing the story of the film 'Lingaa' with the story claimed to have been written by him as he has absolutely no access to the story or the contents of the film which itself would show that he has merely initiated a vexatious litigation on assumptions and surmises. All the legal requirements to safeguard the copy right of the story and other film aspects have been complied with.

42. Further, he and other Respondents associated with the production of the film 'Lingaa' have not committed any offence much less the offences alleged by the Petitioner. Even without ascertaining and properly appreciating himself about the story line of the film 'Lingaa', the Petitioner in a fit of deriving publicity has come forward with the Writ Petition alleging in action on the part of the Respondents 1 to 6 in taking action against the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and himself. The Petitioner has failed to make out a case against the Respondents. He has been roped into unnecessary controversy by the Petitioner.

43. Added further, he reserves his right to proceed against the Petitioner for damages in the manner known to Law for his mischievous intentions and to malign his name and reputation apart from trying to gain publicity by make such scandalous accusations. There is no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner has come out with unclean hands as such, the Writ Petition deserved to be dismissed.

44. THE CONTENTS OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF EIGHTH RESPONDENT:- This Respondent does not know the petitioner, his background, status or avocation. Further, the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed in liminie with a direction to the Petitioner to pay exemplary costs. Several stories can be conceived and written on the background of Mullai Periyar issue or the life and service of late John Penny Quick or on unification of rivers and rivulets in India. No one can claim copy right or authorship on these background materials. He is not aware of the uploading of the Petitioner's story in any website or telecast of the same through any channel. He is equally not aware of the alleged uploading of the said story in 'You Tube' from 26/2/2013. The Petitioner had not chosen to mention what material in the 'You Tube' made him to reach to the conclusion that the story of the film 'Lingaa' is the same as the story which he claims to have written.

45. The allegation of the Petitioner is that the Respondents (including himself) had clandestinely stolen the Petitioner's story from 'You Tube' and posted in the website on 2/5/2014 is not only false but also mischievous. The story line of the picture 'Lingaa' was not posted in any website as stated by the Petitioner not has it been published anywhere so far by any of the Respondents 7, 10 and 11 or himself.

46. He is not concerned with the production or release of the Petitioner's proposed film and take very strong objections to the phrase 'stolen story' used by the Petitioner in paragraph 7 of his affidavit. The date of release of picture 'Lingaa' is very much a matter only within the knowledge of the Producer and Director of the said film. This Respondent has no say on it. He does not know whether it is scheduled to be released during Pongal 2015 or earlier or later. In regard to the averment that the allegedly stolen story was reproduced in 'Kungumam magazine' dated 19/5/2014, it is submitted that the story of 'Lingaa' has not been reproduced in that magazine. There was an article in that Magazine dated 19/5/2014 written by the Reporters of that Magazine in which they had stated that Penny Quick's life would be a background of 'Lingaa' and the hero would be an Engineer who constructs a Dam and protects it from anti-social elements. More than that noting is stated about the story of 'Lingaa'. Even assuming that such statements could be correct, no one can claim copy right over Penny Quick's life or the theme of a hero constructing a dam and protecting it from anti-social elements. The concept of a story, qua an intellectual property is something wider and would not apply to mere themes and historic facts like what is stated above.

47. In the Article in 'Kumudam' magazine dated 6/8/2014, it is stated that the story of 'Lingaa' has a historical background, comprising the events that happened in the year 1895. It also says that the hero of the film does the role of Penny Quick. Thus, it is clear that people including the press Reporters keep guessing about the story of 'Lingaa' and the said story has not been officially published anywhere so far. Though his story was taken up by the Director of the film for this project, he had given a new shape and added elements to his life and he himself cannot say with certainty what would be the story of 'Lingaa' without watching its release version. It is equally true that the Petitioner has not reproduced his alleged story in the affidavit, in the typed set or anywhere else.

48. Further, reading the Petitioner's affidavit, he browsed 'You Tube' and saw what the Petitioner had uploaded therein sometime in February 2013 on 'Mullai Vanam 999'. In that the Petitioner states that the story concerns with Mullai Periyar Dam and how the people of six Districts in Tamil Nadu unitedly fight for their rights over the said Dam. It also contains statement of certain artiste that the story involves love between a Tamil Boy and Kerala Girl. As such, the Petitioner has not published any story at all, any where, at any point of time.

49. He had registered his story under the title 'King Khan' with South Indian Film Writers' Association a registered Trade Body on 15/12/2010 itself under Registration No.02593-M.N.735. The Registration Certificate issued to him by the said Trade Body shows that his script in English was written on 26 pages. The said script was submitted by him in duplicate to the Trade Body. One copy was kept in a pasted cover which was sealed by the said Trade Body and returned to him. The other copy was submitted in open format and the same was signed and sealed on every page by the said Trade Body and returned to him as such. Every page also contains his signature.

50. Moreover, he had submitted the sealed cover and xerox copy of the script in Open Format to the Director of the film 'Lingaa' when the said Director and the Producers purchased his story for their film with his full permission to adapt the same with any modification, addition and omission as they may deem fit for their film. He had submitted the original Registration Card issued to him by the said Trade Body to the Director of the film 'Lingaa'. Since he is bound by a covenant of confidentiality, he is constrained not to reveal the said story in public domain. However, if this Court directs, he shall submit a confidential synopsis of his story in a sealed cover for the scrutiny of this Court.

51. He is advised to submit that no averment in the affidavit nor any averment in the letter dated 1/11/2014 of the Petitioner said to have been written by him to the Director General of Police and 11 others attracts any of the provisions of Law cited in paragraph 8 of his affidavit.

52. He never received a copy of any complaint that the Petitioner claims to have made and he specifically denies that he received a copy of the letter dated 1/11/2014 addressed to 12 persons including himself from the Petitioner. This is not a case where the Petitioner has made a demand on any statutory or public authority demanding discharge of a legal duty. Also, he himself not sure of his rights or what duty he seeks to enforce through which Authority by way of the present Writ of Mandamus from this Court. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner cannot claim copy right in an unpublished work. The statements in 'You Tube' do not constitute publication of his story. Even without knowing or attempting to know the exact story line of the picture 'Lingaa', the Petitioner has ventured to file the present Writ Petition on mere guess and surmises only with an intention to gain undue publicity for himself, etc. Further, inordinate and unexplained delay in the Petitioner filing the Writ Petition at this eleventh hour disentitles him from maintaining the present Writ Petition because he had stated in paragraph 5 of his affidavit that on 2/5/2014 itself, he browsed the 'You Tube' and found the story of 'Lingaa'.

53. THE GERMANE FACTS OF THE CONTENTS OF THE COUNTER OF TENTH RESPONDENT: The Petitioner is basing his entire false claim on a free flimsy thread that the story of the film 'Lingaa' and his story are both based on Mullai Periyar Dam. Except for the official teasers and trailers, nothing about or related to 'Lingaa' has been published or caused to be published anywhere by any any of the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11. Thus, it is not clear as to how the Petitioner came to the conclusion that the story of the film 'Lingaa' is the same as the story which he claims to have written.

54. The Petitioner has not published the story anywhere till date. In fact, even by his own admission, he has not yet commenced production of his alleged film based on his alleged story. His claim that the entire story was uploaded in 'You Tube' on 24/2/2013 itself is misleading since all that the 'You Tube' clipping reveals which this Respondent has come to learn upon browsing, is that his story concerns Mullai Periyar Dam and how people of six Districts in Tamil Nadu unitedly fight for their rights over the said Dam. It also contains a statement by certain artiste that the story involves the love affair between a Tamil Boy and a Kerala Girl. Such sketchy reports on the general theme cannot amount to telling a story.

55. The allegation that the Respondents including himself had clandestinely stolen the Petitioner's story from 'You Tube' and posted it in that website on 2/5/2014 is not only false but also mischievous. It is once again denied that the story of 'Lingaa' was ever published anywhere let alone posted in 'You Tube' on 2/5/2014 or published in 'Kungumam Magazine' dated 19/5/2014. Further, no one can claim copy right over the Penny Quick's life or theme of a hero constructing a dam and protecting it from anti-social elements. The concept of a story, qua an intellectual property is something wider would not apply to mere themes and historic facts like what is stated above.

56. The public, including the Press would keep guessing about the story of 'Lingaa'. Though the basic story line of the Eighth Respondent has been taken for this film, the screenplay has been done by this Respondent and several other original elements have been added to it. Further, the Petitioner has also not reproduced his alleged story in the affidavit in the typed set or anywhere else. It is beyond one's common sense as to how the Petitioner has come to the conclusion that the story of 'Lingaa' is allegedly same as his story.

57. The Eighth Respondent had registered his story under the title 'King Khan' with South Indian Film Writers' Association, a registered Trade Body on 15/12/2010 itself under Registration No.02593-M.N.735 and has handed over to the Sixth Respondent the original Registration Certificate issued by the said Trade Body. Further, he had also handed over to him the sealed cover containing the script as submitted to the said Trade Body bearing their authentication along with a Xerox Copy of the script bearing the seal and signature of the said Trade Body and the story writer, the Eighth Respondent.

58. Also that no averment in the affidavit nor any averment in the letter dated 1/11/2014 said to have been written by the Petitioner to the Director General of Tamil Nadu, Police Department and 11 others attracts any of the provisions of Law cited in paragraph 8 of the Petitioner's affidavit. He further denies having received a copy of the alleged letter dated 1/11/2014 of the Petitioner addressed to 12 persons including himself.

59. This is not a case where the Petitioner has made a demand on any statutory or public authority demanding discharge of a legal duty. The Petitioner himself is not sure of his rights or what duty he seeks to enforce through which Authority by way of the present Writ of Mandamus. On the basis of affidavit and the typed set of papers filed, this is a fit case to be dismissed in liminie as not maintainable.

60. Further, the Petitioner cannot claim copyright in an unpublished work. The statements in 'You Tube' do not constitute publication of story. Even without knowing or attempting to know the exact story line of the picture 'Lingaa' the Petitioner has ventured to file the present Writ Petition on a mere guess and surmises only with an intention to gain undue publicity for himself and hold the Respondents to ransom and make illegal gain out of it. Also, he has filed the present Writ Petition with an inordinate and unexplained delay at this eleventh hour which disentitles him from maintaining the present Writ Petition especially as per paragraph 5 of his affidavit on 2/5/2014 itself, he found the story of 'Lingaa' while browsing 'You Tube'.

61. There is no prayer against the present Respondent or any of the persons actually concerned with 'Lingaa' viz., the Respondents 7, 10 and 11. Thus, the whole claim is not only false but also frivolous and vexatious and the same is filed with total non-application of mind.

62. Besides the above, it is submitted that the film 'Lingaa' has been produced with huge investment of several crores of rupees and is tentatively scheduled for release on 12/12/2014. This Respondent is a reputed Director in the film world having given several hit films like Padayappa, Muthu, Avvai Shanmugi, Dasavatharam, Tenali etc and only with the intent to spoil his reputation, this flimsy and vexatious petition has been filed. Hence the Writ Petition is to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

63. THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS:- The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner's entire story 'Mullai Vanam 999' was uploaded by him in 'You Tube' a social website on 24/2/2013 itself and that it was telecasted on 26/2/2013 in channels like Ottran Seithi, Sun Network, Kalaingnar Network, Raj Network, Jaya Network, Mega T.V and Vasanth T.V and further, from 26/2/2013 onwards 'You Tube' floated the same in public domain.

64. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner gave a complaint to the Respondents 1 to 3 on 1/11/2014 and he went to Cyber Crime Wing of Madurai City Police, working under the Third Respondent, who informed the Petitioner to approach the Third Respondent. Hence the Petitioner made a complaint on 1/11/2014 which was forwarded to Tallakulam Police Station on 6/11/2014 and in fact, the very forwarding of Petitioner's complaint to the said Tallakulam Police Station is with a motive. Moreover, the Third Respondent had purposely forwarded the Petitioner's complaint to an irrelevant Department (Tallakulam Police Station) and they have no source for investigation.

65. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to submit that since no action was taken in the matter, he filed the present Writ Petition before this Court.

66. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would state that on 16/11/2014, the music release ceremony of 'Lingaa' was held at Sathiyam Multiplex, Chennai and further, when notice had come from this Court, the Trailer of 'Lingaa' for five minutes was released and this itself is a robbery and a contemptuous act. Also that, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that 'Lingaa' was registered by the Director Ameer five years ago at the Name Registering Association, Chennai and 'Lingaa' name was taken by undue influence.

67. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that on 24/2/2013 at 10.00 a.m., the film feature Pooja for Petitioners 'Mullai Vanam 999' was celebrated at AVM Studios which was presided over by several V.I.Ps etc., and the shooting for Petitioner's new film is to be shot from January 2015 onwards, both indoors and outdoors and also that pre-shooting initiations were conducted in and around Theni to Madurai Districts and Kerala for the past ten months while staying at Theni International Guest House along with the Producers, Artistes, Cameramen and other off-screen Technicians.

68. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner's feature film 'Mullai Vanam 999' is to be produced at the cost of Rs.3,31,20,000/- and the same expected to fetch a commercial gain of Rs.15 crores through his dream story and screenplay. Whereas the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 are shooting the feature film 'Lingaa' at a lightening speed both in Mysore, Kerala and Tamil Nadu with the stolen story of the Petitioner.

69. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects an argument that to the Petitioner's shock and surprise, on 2/5/2014, while browsing 'You Tube', his story was appearing in the film named 'Lingaa' as if produced by the Seventh Respondent, directed by the Tenth Respondent, story by the Eighth Respondent and to be acted and distributed by the Eleventh Respondent and these aforesaid Respondents had clandestinely stolen the Petitioner's story from 'You Tube' and posted the same on 2/5/2014 whereas the very same story was floated in the name of 'Mullai Vanam 999' by the Petitioner as early as 24/2/2013.

70. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has invested 47 years of labour in the film industry and for the first time, his story of 'Mullai Vanam 999' is to be released during Tamil New Year's Day (Chithirai 2015) whereas his maiden stolen story is to be released during Pongal 2015 by the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 which would bring his entire future into the dark gallows. Also that in 'Kungukam Magazine' dated 19/5/2014, the stolen story has been reproduced through the auspices of the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11.

71. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner's intellectual property from 'You Tube' has been stolen by the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 for gaining illegally and thereby bringing loss to the Petitioner.

72. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that although the Petitioner had preferred the complaint before the Respondents 1 to 6 on 1/11/2014 mentioning all the offences committed by the Respondents 7, 8,10 and 11, so far no First Information Report has been registered either by the Cyber Crime or by any other authority.

73. Proceeding further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in paragraph No.11 of the counter affidavit filed by the Eighth Respondent, it was stated that the story titled 'King Khan' was registered by him on 15/12/2010 itself and the same is the film 'Linga' story line.

74. In this regard, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that after receipt of notice from this Court, as an after thought, the aforesaid averment is being made to counter the uplinking of 'Mullai Vanam 999' in 'You Tube' on 26/2/2013. Moreover, the film 'King Khan' was released in Hindi during 2011 itself and it has nothing to do with Mullai Periyar or Colonel John Penny Quick and that the contesting Respondents are trying to dupe this Court by filing a certificate of another story only to show that it was registered on 15/12/2010, well before the date of floating 'Mullai Vanam 999' in the 'You Tube' on 26/2/2013 as a false counter blast.

75. It is represented on behalf of the Petitioner the film 'Lingaa' with a budget of Rs.300 crores was sold for Rs.600 crores.

76. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the counter of Eleventh Respondent mentions that no other Distributor has not been impleaded and the same is true because of the reason that his daughter is a 36% share holder in Eros International which is nothing but a benami distributor for Eleventh Respondent and they were not impleaded as Distributors, so as not to bring the family members of Eleventh Respondent into Court proceedings. Also that the stolen film 'Lingaa' the Japanese distribution rights has also been taken by the daughter of Eleventh Respondent through Eros International Distribution Company.

77. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is a poor Director belonging to Arundadiar Community and with great difficulty, struggling to enter into the giant screen from the small screen through the maiden film 'Mullai Vanam 999'. The entire career, future and life is resting upon the stolen story of 'Lingaa' and as such this Court may save all 47 years of the Petitioner's life and save 'Mullai Vanam 999' story line from the hands of the Respondents and their stolen feature film 'Lingaa'.

78. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS 1, 3 AND 5:- The Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents 1 to 3 and 5 submits that the Respondents 1 to 3 have no power to conduct Fact Finding Committee at all and there is no provision for an Investigating Agency to appoint a Fact Finding Committee and as such, the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition in this regard cannot be considered. Further, it is represented that the representation of the Petitioner was sent on 5/11/2014 through 'Registered Post' and the Third Respondent received the same on 6/11/2014 and in fact, the Third Respondent forwarded the same to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tallakulam for enquiry on 8/11/2014 and he forwarded the same to the Inspector of Police, Tallakulam for an enquiry and that the Inspector of Police, Tallakulam, conducted an enquiry on 13/11/2014 and he called the Petitioner/Complainant and that the Petitioner/Complainant had informed the Investigating Officer that he wanted time till 20/11/2014 since he had urgent work at Chennai.

79. Also that on 20/11/2014, the complainant appeared before the Inspector of Police and gave a statement that he is directing a film in the name of 'Mullai Vanam 999' and produced the invitation and photographs on the opening ceremony of the said film and also that according to him, his film is based on Mullai Periyar Dam and Colonel John Penny Quick and further that Pooja for his film was held on 24/2/2013 at A.V.M. Studios and in that function, several VIPs had participated and that the events of Pooja held on 24/2/2013 were telecasted in 'You Tube' and other channels.

80. The Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondents 1, 3 and 5 proceeds to contend that the Petitioner was denying the preparatory work for the film and intended to commence shooting from January 2014 and also that the Petitioner saw an article published in 'Kumudham weekly' dated 6/8/2014 and 'Kungumam weekly' on 19/5/2014 and he suspected the story line of film 'Lingaa' produced by the Seventh Respondent is similar to that of his film 'Mullai Vanam 999' and requested to stay the exhibition of film 'Lingaa' in the representation/Petition dated 1/11/2014.

81. That apart, the Learned Additional Advocate General brings it to the notice of this Court that both the Petitioner and the concerned Respondent were examined and in fact, both of them had not submitted their story either 'Mullai Vanam 999' or 'Lingaa'. Further, when there are no materials and when materials were not supplied by the concerned parties, it is not possible for the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation.

82. THE CONTENTIONS ON THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENTS 4 AND 6:- The Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the Respondents 4 and 6 contends that the affidavit filed by the Petitioner in the Writ Petition is not in proper format and nothing is made out and that the Writ Affidavit is not as per Rules framed by this Court.

83. It is the further submission of the Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the Respondents 4 and 6 that the public Law remedy is not available to the Petitioner and infact, the Petitioner's grievance is a private one and that a Civil Suit will lie and in fact, the Writ Petition will not lie.

84. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS 8 AND 10:- The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 8 and 10 submits that the film 'Lingaa' (child) is not yet born and only when it is certified by the Central Board of Film Certification, then one will know what the film it is and even some changes may be made at the instance of the Film Certification Board. Therefore, it is premature and it is duly certified and a proper certificate is issued and made available for public nothing can be said in the subject matter in issue. In effect, the plea taken on behalf of the Respondents 8 and 10 is the film 'Lingaa' is in the making and not given it for Censor Board.

85. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the relief prayed for by the Petitioner in the Writ Petition is in the nature of Mandamus by directing the Respondents 1 to 6 to act upon his representation dated 1/11/2014 by conducting a detailed enquiry after appointing a Fact Finding Committee, etc., and in this regard to claim a relief of Mandamus,

(i). There must be an enforceable legal duty and

(ii). The infringement of such duty by a Public Authority.

Also that, what is the legal duty i.e., sought to be enforced as seen from the affidavit filed in the Writ Petition by the Petitioner? It is still a mere confusing omni bus prayer/relief and in fact, the present Writ is an abuse of process of Law.

86. That apart, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 8 and 10 contends that the representation dated 1/11/2014 of the Petitioner is addressed to twelve persons and the Respondents 1, 2, 7 are Police Officers and the Respondents 3 and 4 are Government Officers (R.3 is a Central Government Officer and R.4 is the State Government Officer) and the Respondents 5 and 6 are statutory authorities under the Cinema Autograph Act and in short, out of twelve Respondents, Seven are Public Officers. Further, the balance of Five persons are private individuals and in reality, the Petitioner has omitted to include Central Board of Film Certificate's Vice Chairman and the Regional Officer in the Writ Petition. However, the Petitioner has included the Sixth Respondent.

87. Besides the above, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 8 and 10 submits that the representation of the Petitioner dated 1/11/2014 is not only addressed to the Public Authorities but also to the Police Officers as a complaint and as such, the said representation is a mixture of both. In short, the Petitioner has not spelt out a legal duty in his representation dated 1/11/2014. Moreover, he is dictating what should be done and the prayer in the Writ Petition has two elements.

88. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner in his representation dated 1/11/2014 prays for stopping of the release of 'Lingaa' and to grant him protection. Also, he wants his representation dated 1/11/2014 to be registered as Firtst Information Report and to conduct enquiry.

89. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 8 and 10 refers to definition Section 2 (k) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which speaks of 'Computer Resource' means Computer, Computer System, Computer Network, Data, Computer database or software' and Section 2 (h) (a) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 which deals with the 'Communication Device' meaning cell phones, personal digital assistance or combination of both or any other device used to communicate, send or transmit any text, video, audio or image' and in the present Writ Petition, the averment of the Petitioner is that the story of 'Lingaa' has been stolen by the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 and if that is so, it is not a Cyber Crime and it will be an infringement of Copy Right.

90. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 8 and 10 submits that Section 66 (E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with 'Punishment for Violation of Privacy' and this Section cannot be pressed into service by the Petitioner. Also that Section 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 speaks of 'Penalty for breach of Confidentiality and Privacy' and in fact, there is no contract between the Petitioner and the Respondents 8 and 10. Section 76 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 speaks of 'Confiscation' and Section 77 deals with 'Compensation, Penalties or confiscation not to interfere with other punishment'. In short, there is no transaction between the Petitioner and the Respondents 8 and 10 and further, none of the Indian Penal Code Sections remotely attract to the facts of the present case.

91. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 8 and 10 submits that in terms of ingredients of Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure, complaint must be given to the Jurisdictional Police and as per Section 154 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner can address to the Superior Police Officer. Besides these, in the representation of the Petitioner dated 1/11/2014, statements or in the Writ affidavit, there is no statement/averment that the representation was first given to the Jurisdictional Police. In fact, the Petitioner's representation dated 1/11/2014 was despatched on 5/11/2014 and the Writ Petition was filed on 11/11/2014. In regard to the stand of the Petitioner that he came to know about 'Lingaa' Story from 'Kungumam' and 'Kumudham' magazines.

92. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 8 and 10 contends that from the reading of these materials, no one can say 'what is their story' and in fact, the Reporters have stated about their picture that the Seventh Respondent is the Producer, Eighth Respondent is the Story Writer and the Tenth Respondent is the Director.

93. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 8 to 10 contends that in the write ups of the said Magazines, nothing is stated as to what is the story and in fact, in the write up of Kungumam dated 1/5/2014, it is mentioned as 'bgd;dp fptpf; fijBa 'ypA;fhtpd; moehjkhf nUf;Fk; vd;fpwhh;fs'; and the same is only a 'guess'.

94. The Leanred Counsel for the Respondents 8 and 10 by referring to paragraph 2 of the write up in 'Kumudham magazine' vide page No.13 of the typed set of papers and submits that the story 'Lingaa' is produced based on historical background of the period 1895 and beyond that nothing is stated. Further more, the Petitioner had not stated in the Writ Petition as to what he had uploaded and further, the Petitioner has not published any story at all and the averment in the additional affidavit would not amount to story and in fact, a mere theme cannot be a story.

95. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 8 and 10 brings it to the notice of this Court that now-a-days, the life of the film is only for two weeks and in those days, there would be set theatres where some films will run for 100 days. But, now, thousand prints are taken and in multiflex theatres, 20 shows are shown and 1000 exhibitions are made within a week.

96. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 8 and 10 cites the order of this Court dated 25/1/2012 in O.A.Nos.917 and 918 of 2011 in C.S.No.756 of 2011, wherein in paragraph Nos.28 to 31, it is observed and held as follows:-

"28. On consideration, I find that the applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of interim injunction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.G.ANAND Vs. M/s. DELUX FILMS (AIR 1978 SC ? 1613), was pleased to lay down the following proposition of law:-

"46. Thus, on a careful consideration and elucidation of the various authorities and the case law on the subject discussed above, the following propositions emerge:

1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the copyright work.

2. Where the same idea is being developed in a different manner, it is manifest that the source being common, similarities are bound to occur. In such a case the courts should determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. If the defendants work is nothing but a literal imitation of the copyrighted work with some variations here and there it would amount to violation of the copyright. In other words, in order to be actionable the copy must be a substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy.

3. One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to seeing the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original.

4. Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a completely new work, no question of violation of copyright arises.

5.Where however apart from the similarities appearing in the two works there are also material and broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy the original and the coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright comes into existence.

6. As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence after applying the various tests laid down by the case law discussed above.

7. Where however the question is of the violation of the copyright of stage play by a film producer or a Director the task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy. It is manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader prospective, a wider field and a bigger background where the defendants can by introducing a variety of incidents give a colour and complexion different from the manner in which the copyrighted work has expressed the idea. Even so, if the viewer after seeing the film gets a totality of impression that the film is by and large a copy of the original play, violation of the copyright may be said to be proved.

29. When the facts of this case is considered in the light of authoritative pronoucement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is to be held that the applicant cannot claim copyright of idea. In an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such case is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of idea, whch is not the case here. The pleaded case and argument raised shows that it is the same idea, which was developed, therefore, some similarities cannot make out a case of violation of copyright.

30. In order to succed, it was for the plaintiff/applicant to show that the spectator or the viewer get an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original, which is not the case either pleaded or proved. In this case, admittedly besides similarities, there is also material and broad dissimilarities, which prima facie shows that there is no infringement of copy right, therefore, suit filed by the applicant/plaintiff prima facie does not show infringement of copy right.

31. Consequently, no other conclusion than the one that the applicant/plaintiff has failed to make out prima facie case, can be arrived at. The applicant/plaintiff, in the event of success finally, can always claim damages, therefore, the balance of convenience is certainly in favour of the defendants/non-applicants, as he has already produced the film and is ready for release."

97. He also relies on the order of this Court dated 26/9/2012 in O.A.No.790 of 2012 in C.S.No.620 of 2012 in paragraph 24, it is held as under:-

"After careful consideration of the respective contentions and the legal authorities produced, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case where injunction can be granted. The defence taken by the respondents cannot be said to be wholly irrelevant. In any event, it requires a full trial of the case on hand. It is unnecessary to give a finding on each of the contentions as it will prejudice the refular trial. It is suffice that some of the applicant's original stand have been controverted in the counter affidavit supported by two supporting affidavits. Merely because the story of the respondents having similarities which will not automatically result in believing the applicant's assertion. In view of the above, a regular trial has to be done in this case. In case, the applicant succeeds, he can always seek for quantified damages for the alleged loss of infringement."

98. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS 7 AND 11:- The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 7 and 11 informs this Court that he adopts the argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 8 and 10 and further, advances the following contentions.

99. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 7 and 11 contends that for violation of Copy Right, the Writ Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner is not maintainable before this Court. Further, the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition has not established that he has a copyright in the subject matter in issue. In fact, the allegations levelled by the Petitioner against the Eleventh Respondent are scandalous and in fact, the Eleventh Respondent is arrayed as a party by the Petitioner with a view to make an illegal gain besides to tarnish the Eleventh Respondent's image.

100. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 7 and 11 submits that the Petitioner has made a bald allegation in his written argument that one of the daughters of the Eleventh Respondent is a 36% shareholder in Eros International and in fact, that legal entity is not a party to the present Writ Petition.

101. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 7 and 11 contends that the Petitioner can approach the Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Further, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 7 and 11 that the Petitioner, as on date does not have any Copy Right and further, he has not spent a single money on production and in fact, the production of 'Lingaa' is completed and other works are going on and in fact, before the Police, he sought time till 20/11/2014 and approaches this Court on 11/11/2014 by filing the present Writ Petition.

102. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 7 and 11 contends that the Petitioner has come to this Court with unclean hands and in fact, there can be no copy right in respect of idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and in short, the Petitioner has not fulfilled any one of the criterias mentioned in paragraph 46 of the Judgment in the decision AIR 1978 SC ? 1613 R.G.ANAND V. DELUX FILMS AND ORS and as such, there is no question of violation of Copy Right in the present case on hand.

103. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cites the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 22/8/2007 in O.S.A.No.126 of 2007 between S.SENTHIL KUMAR V. Mr.KAMALAHASAN AND ANOTHER, wherein in paragraph No.11, it is observed as follows:-

"In R.G.Anand V. Delux Films {(1978) 4 SCC 118}, the Supreme Court has laid down the following guidances in paragraphs 45 and 46 and we extract those guidances which are relevant for the purpose of the present case:-

"Thus, the position appears to be that an idea, principle, theme or subject-matter or historical or legendary facts being common property cannot be the subject-matter of copyright of a particular person. It is always open to any person to choose an idea as a subject-matter and develop it in his own manner and give expression to the idea by treating it differently from others ...

.... Thus, the fundamental fact which has to be determined where a charge of violation of the copyright is made by the plaintiff against the defendant is to determine whether or not the defendant not onl adopted the idea of the copyrighted work but has also adopted the manner, arrangement, situation to situation, scene to scene with minor changes or super additions or embellishment here and there ...

Care, however, must be taken to see whether the defendant has merel disguised piracy or has actually reproduced the original in a different form, different tone, different tenor so as to infuse a new life into the idea of the copyrighted work adapted by him. In the latter case there is no violation of the copyright.

... In other words, in order to be actionable the copy must be a substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy. One of the surest and safest tests to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to see if the reader, spectator or viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original. Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a completely new work, no question of violation of copyright arises.

As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence...."

104. He also seeks in aid of the order dated 20/6/2014 between MANSOOB HAIDER V. YASHRAJ FILM PVT. LTD reported in Manu/MH/0790/2014 (equivalent citations 2014 (59) PTC 292 (Bom) wherein in paragraph Nos.36 to 40, it is observed and held as follows:-

"36. Mr.Kadam refers to the decision of the Chancery Division in Francis Day & Hunter Limited & Anr. vs. Bron & Anr. 1963 (1) Chancery 587 in which the Court said that the question of fact of whether or not there is an infringement of copyright must be taken in two stages, the first objective and the second objective. The objective question of fact, one that depends to a very great extent on the perception of the Court and on the evidence before it, is an assessment of whether there is a substantial similarity between the two works. The subjective test is blunter. It assesses whether any ordinary person on considering the two works would inevitably come to one, and only one conclusion, viz., that the allegedly offending work is a copy of the plaintifs.

37. The test Mr.Kadam and Mr.Dhond suggest is one that is singularly appealing. It is a test that is drawn from the law as settlled in R.G.Anand's case and reflected too in the two decisions of the United States Court cited by Mr.Dhond. The test is this: if we remove all scenes to which no originally attaches, such as all scenes, a faire then are the two works still substantially similar, and has the subsequent work copied substantial part of the earlier work? Indeed, if this is applied to the elements carved out by Mr.Modi in his submissions, very likely the entire suit would fail.

38. There are, therefore, three crucial questions or legal tests in cases like this:

(a). Has the plaintiff proved that the defendant had access to his work?

(b). On considering the two works, would an ordinary person inevitably conclude that the defendant had copied the plaintiff's work? (the subjective or intrinsic test); and

(c). Is there a substantial and material overlapping or commonality of the origianl elements in the plaintiff's work?

39. Even if a plaintiff fails on the first question, he may yet succeed on the second and third questions. But if he fails on the second question also, then I do not see how he can possibly succeed on the third alone. But that may arise in another matter. In this case, in my view, the present plaintiff fails on all three counts. Indeed, his case is not even based on the second question, but only on the first and his own variation of the third; that Defendant Nos.1 to 3 had access and that there are common elements, even if these are not shown to be entirely unique and some of which are later given up as being original (the magic trick) or demonstrated to be untrue (being set in a foreign locale). The plaintiffs variation on the third question is a sort of reductio ad absurdum; a vivisection of individual elements, a false and misleading juxtaposition of these, and, on that basis, to 'cound up the usual suspects' and invite a finding of infringement. If these elements, however and wherever placed, are in support of an entirely different premise and story line, there can be no copying, no piracy and no infringement.

G. Conclusions

40. In my view, there is no case whatsoever made out for the grant of interim relief. The Plaintiff has not made out a prima-facie case. I am not conviced that the plaintiff has even been able to demonstrate that his work was given to, let alone seen, by the 1st defendant or any of its employees, officers or principal personnel. The two works are entirely different, each original in its own way. The film Dhoom 3 is not and cannot possibly be said to be a copy of the plaintiff's work once. The material propositions and premise of the two works are entirely dissimilar. The mere use in both of certain well established and commonly used motifs, themes or elements or even the perhaps co-incidental placing of these in a certain juxtaposition gives the plaintiff no rights against the rival work."

105. He invites the attention of this Court to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court R.G.ANAND Vs. DELUX FILMS and ORS (AIR 1978 SC ? 1613), wherein it is observed that there can be no copy right subsists in idea of the subject matter, themes, plots, legendary facts, etc.

106. That apart, in the aforesaid Judgment, it is also observed that "Where the theme is the same but the same is presented and treated differently, so that the subsequent work becomes a complete new work, no question of violation of copy right arises."

107. Moreover, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 7 and 11 laid emphasis on the observation made by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision in paragraph 52 (5) wherein it is mentioned as follows:-

"Where however apart from the similarities appearing in the two works there are also material and broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy the original and the coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright comes into existence."

108. It is the emphatic submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 7 and 11 that in respect of Legendary facts/subjects of Mullai Periyar or Colonel J. Penni Quick, they being the common property, they cannot be the subject matter of Copy Right. Further, the Petitioner has not established his Copy Right and Producer of the film 'Lingaa' has spent huge money and the said movie is almost complete and the balance of convenience is only lies in favour of the Seventh Respondent/Producer and that apart, later, the Petitioner can only claim damages at a later point of time, if he establishes a case for infringement of Copy Right. As such, the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is a baseless one, which is to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

109. REPLY SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:- By means of reply, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Respondents have not stated that they have not stolen the story of the Petitioner and technicalities will never arise in the present case and in fact, the Petitioner's maiden story 'Mullai Vanam 999' (his property) is stolen and the Petitioner is a rustic Village person and based on the representation of the Petitioner dated 1/11/2014, no action is taken by the Police and there is no need for the Petitioner to black mail anyone and that the Petitioner was called to the Police Station and none was called to the Police Station and the Petitioner went to the Police Station for number of times and he was sent back and in fact, the Petitioner is a stream in a desert and with an aching heart and burnt mind, he has approached this Court.

110. It is represented on behalf of some of the contesting Respondents that Ninth Respondent is not concerned with controversy between the parties.

111. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS:- At the outset, it is to be pointed out that the term 'Mandamus' literally means 'we command'. The Writ of Mandamus is one issued by the Superior Court to a Lower Court/Tribunal/Administrative Authority to perform properly a particular duty.

112. Further, the existence of a legal right and infringement of the same by a Public Authority is a sine qua non for exercise of Jurisdiction to issue the Writ of Mandamus. At this stage, this Court aptly points out the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in DIRECTOR OF SETTLEMENTS V. M.R.APPA RAO (2002 4 SCC ? 638), wherein it is held that the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India though discretionary and though without serious limits must be exercised along with recognised lines and subject to certain self-imposed limitations.

113. It is to be noted that the object of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the enforcement of a 'Fundamental Right' and not the establishment of a 'Right'. Also, that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India canot be converted into a suit. Added further, Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be available to a party for settling private disputes for which the remedies are available under ordinary Law. Besides these, the merits of rival claims relating to a property cannot be investigated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Also, when the right claimed by the Petitioner hinges upon the determination of contentious issues/questions which require an elaborate examination of evidence, then certainly Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate remedy for the Petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court.

114. It is to be borne in mind that the object of the complaint from the point of view of informant is to set the criminal Law in motion. The object from the point of view of Investigating Officer is to obtain information of occurrence and to take a suitable step. Indeed, the First Information Report is not a substantive evidence and can be used to corroborate or contradict the maker and not any other witness, in the considered opinion of this Court.

115. It is to be remembered that the duty of Investigating Officer is not to bolster up the prosecution case. The duty of Investigating Officer is to discover the truth. The Investigating Officer can collect any evidence which he considers proper and there cannot be any restriction on the Police in this regard.

116. One cannot brush aside an important fact that an obligation to register a case cannot be confused with a remedy, if the same is not registered. The registration of a case does not ipso facto warrant the setting in motion of an investigation as the same is subject to a discretion of the Police, subject to Section 157 (1) proviso and Section 157 (2) in case of cognizable cases and schedule to Section 155 in case of non-cognizable cases. As a matter of fact, the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the Police Officers where the powers in that field are unfettered, so long as the power to investigate into cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ordinarily, a Writ Court cannot direct Investigation Agency to carry out investigation in a particular fashion. The Police investigation under Cr.P.C., can be commenced only if the First Information Report discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Further, in an appropriate case, a Police Officer has a duty to make a preliminary enquiry, so as to find out whether the allegations have any substance or not as opined by this Court. Undoubtedly, the First Information Report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a very vital document. It is the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by the Officer in-charge of a Police Station. It sets the ball of a Criminal Law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends with the formation of an opinion under Sections 169 or 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and forwarding a Police Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No wonder, 'locus standi' of the complainant is alien to Criminal Jurisprudence. Also, a criminal proceeding is not a proceeding for vindication of a private grievance.

117. It is to be pertinently pointed out that Section 66 (B) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with 'Punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or communication device'. There is a striking similarity between Section 66 (B) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, the only variance being a specific reference to a stolen computer resource or communications device rather than property. The ingredients of Section 66 (E) of the Information Technology Act are similar to several peeping tom legislations most notably the video voyeurism Prevention Act, 2004 (18 U.S.C.A. Sec.1801), which is the federal Law prohibiting voyeurism in United States of America.

118. At this stage, this Court relevantly points out that Section 14 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 speaks of 'Meaning of Copy Right'. Section 16 refers to 'No Copy Right except as provided under the Copy Right Act, 1957'. It is to be remembered that all endeavour intellectual excellence is so equally open to who wish to add or to improve upon the material already collected by others making a original work. It cannot be gain said that no homo-sapien can monopolise on a certain subject. But at the same time, one should keep in mind that the object under the Copy Right Act, 1957 is to protect the commercial value of the productive effort of a person's mind and to secure a fair return to an author for his creative labour.

119. That apart, Section 55 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 speaks of 'Civil remedies for infringement of Copy Right'. Section 6 of the Copy Right Act, 1911 provides for infringement by way of injunction or interdict damages etc. Where a Copy Right in any work is infringed, the owner of a Copy Right in Law shall be entitled to all such remedies by way of injunction or interdict damages, accounts and otherwise, as are or may be conferred by Law for the infringement of a right. The appropriate remedy for a party in this regard is to move the competent Civil Court by way of a Civil Suit.

120. Section 62 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 deals with Jurisdiction of Court over matters under this Chapter'. Indeed, the District Court having the jurisdiction where a Civil proceeding can be instituted by an aggrieved in regard to a infringement of a Copy Right in any work or the infringement of any other right conferred by the Copy Right Act and this is an additional ground for attracting the jurisdiction of a Court over and above the normal grounds as specified under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, in the considered opinion of this Court. Section 63 speaks of 'offence of infringement of Copy Right or other rights conferred by the Copy Right Act, etc.

121. As far as the present case is concerned, the Petitioner has come out with a clear stand that he is the owner. The author of the story, screen play and direction of 'Mullai Vanam 999' and further that he had uploaded the entire story in 'You Tube' a social website on 24/2/2013 etc. Further, on 24/2/2014, at 10.00 a.m., the film feature pooja for his 'Mullai Vanam 999' was celebrated in AVM studios which was presided over several VIPs etc., and the shooting for his film is to be shot from January 2014. To his great shock and suprise, on 2/5/2014 while browsing 'You Tube' his story had appeared in the film named 'Lingaa' as if produced by the Seventh Respondent, Directed by the Tenth Respondent, story by the Eighth Respondent and to be acted and distributed by the Eleventh Respondent. In fact, the aforesaid Respondents had clandestinely stolen his property from 'You Tube' and posted the same on 2/5/2014, whereas the very same story was floated by him in the name of 'Mullai Vanam 999' as early as on 24/2/2013 itself. That apart, his maiden property/story from the 'You Tube' has been stolen by the aforesaid Respondents for an illegal gain and thereby to bring a loss to his personal exchequer.

122. The averments/allegation of the Writ Petitioner are stoutly denied by the Respondents 7 to 11. It is the categorical stand of the Respondents 8 and 10 that the Petitioner cannot claim Copy Right in an unpublished work and the statements in 'You Tube' do not constitute publication of Petitioner's story. Also that it is their forcible plea that no one can claim Copy Right Over Penny Quick's life or the theme of a hero constructing a Dam and protecting it from anti-social elements and the concept of a story, qua an intellectual property is something wider and would not apply to mere themes and historic facts.

123. However, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner before this Court that the counter of Eleventh Respondent proceeds to state that both the script and screen play for the movie 'Lingaa' was authored by the Eighth Respondent, which runs contra to the claim made by the Tenth Respondent who had stated that it was he who wrote the screen play for the basic story line of the Eighth Respondent.

124. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of respective contentions and in view of the divergent stand taken by the respective parties and also this Court taking note of the over all assessment of conspectus of the entire attendant facts and circumstances of the present case in an encircling fashion comes to an inevitable conclusion that the grievance of the Petitioner that his intellectual property/story 'Mullai Vanam 999' was stolen by the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 from 'You Tube' is a private dispute especially when the Respondents 7 to 11 have stoutly denied the same and suffice it for this Court to say that in this regard, the merits of the rival claims made by the parties in the subject matter in issue before this Court cannot be investigated in a summary proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

125. That apart, when the Petitioner claims to be the owner of 'Mullai Vanam 999' an intellectual property/story, then his remedy is not to file the present Writ Petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the concerned persons who have alleged to have been infringed his Copy Right/stolen his intellectual property and in this regard, the appropriate remedy for him is to file a Civil Suit before the Competent forum or to avail other remedies available under General Law or in Criminal Law and that too in the manner known to law and in accordance with Law, if he so desires/advised and also deems fit and proper based on the facts and circumstances of the case which float on the surface. Viewed in that perspective, the Writ Petition fails.

126. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to be bear their own costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.

3/12/2014 mvs.

Index: Yes website: yes To

1. The Director General of Police Dr. Kamarajar Salai Mylapore Chennai.

2. The Inspector General of Police South Zone New Natham Road Madurai.

3. The Commissioner of Police Madurai City Madurai.

4. The Secretary The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Union of India New Delhi.

5. The Secretary Information and Cinema Fort St. George Chennai.

6. The Chief Producer Government of India Films Division Shastri Bhavan Haddows Road Egmore Chennai.

M.VENUGOPAL,J mvs.

Pre-delivery order in W.P.(MD) No.18210 of 2014 3/12/2014

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court