Utv Software Communicacations Vs Shree Rajput Sabha and Ors.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1358/08
UTV Software Communication Vs. Shree
Rajput Sabha & Ors.

¶3

Date of order : 13/2/2008.

¶4

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶5

Shri Paras Kuhad with

¶6

Shri Pancham Surana for the petitioner.
Shri Bharat Vyas, AAG with
Shri Sandeep Pathak for the respondent-
State.

¶7

******

¶8

This writ petition has been filed, as

¶9

it appears, by way of a precaution, with

¶10

the prayer that the respondent no.1-Shree
Rajput Sabha and respondent no.2-Shree
Rajput Karni Sena and their members,
agents, representatives and associated
groups etc. should be directed to desist
from taking any coercive action to prevent
the distribution, publicity, promotion,
release, screening or viewing of the film
titled “Jodha Akbar” which is going to be
released for viewing by the general public

¶11

2

¶12

on 15.2.2008.

¶13

Shri Paras Kuhad, learned counsel for
the petitioner contended that the film has
been granted certificate by Censor Board
of India under the Cinematography Act,
1982. It is alleged that respondent nos.1
& 2 have threatened to physically obstruct

¶14

the display and viewing of the film.
Reference is made to various actions which
are attributed to them in paras 9 to 17 of
the writ petition. It is alleged that in
spite of the petitioner having approached
the State administration, the local police
has been calling up cinemas owners
informally and asking them to refrain from
screening the said film. It is alleged
that the action of respondent nos.1 & 2
and inaction on the part of the police
administration in creating fear in the
mind of general public will largely affect
the viewership of the said film. A further

¶15

3

¶16

mandamus is therefore sought against the
State administration and especially the
local police, requiring them to take
immediate preventive measures in order to
maintain general peace and order in the
city. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied on the judgments of the Supreme
Court in Yusuf Khan & Ors. vs. Manohar
Joshi & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 696, Communist
Party of India (M) vs. Bharat Kumar &
Ors., (1998) 1 SCC 201 and James Martin
vs. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 203.

¶17

On being required, Shri Bharat Vyas,
learned Addl. Advocate General has
appeared for the State. He has refuted the
allegation that there was any suggestion
by the local administration or for that
matter, by the police not to screen the
film. Such an assertion cannot be accepted
on mere ipse dixit of the petitioner. It
is argued that State Government is fully

¶18

4

¶19

cognizant of its obligation to maintain
the law and order situation. The writ
petition, in any case, cannot be

¶20

maintained against private bodies. So long
as the petitioner does not approach the
State Government authorities and the
police administration and they are shown
to have failed in discharging their
duties, a petition on mere apprehension
cannot be maintained.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the material on
record as also going through the cited
judgments, I find that even if the
petitioner has approached this court by

¶22

way of a precautionary measure, so long as
it is not shown that it has approached any
of the State functionaries, including the
police administration and they have failed
to discharge their legal obligation, writ
petition on mere apprehension cannot be

¶23

5

¶24

entertained. In rule of law, however,
every responsive Government is supposed to
be alive to its constitutional obligations
including in regard to maintenance of law
and order situation. This court cannot
proceed on the assumption that even if the
threat perceived by the petitioner, that
the screening and viewing of the film
would be physically prevented by the
respondents no.1 & 2 or those supporting
them, may have some foundation, the State
administration would not act so as to take
requisite remedial measures on assessment
of the given situation.

¶25

Shri Bharat Vyas, learned Additional
Advocate General has in any case stated
that the situation that was there in the
concerned States in cited cases before the
Supreme Court and as is prevalent in the

¶26

present case are not comparable. He has
stated that the State administration is

¶27

6

¶28

fully cognizant of its responsibilities.

¶29

In view of the stand taken by the
State, there is no need for this Court as
of now to pass any positive direction
except expecting that the film having been
released for viewing by general public
upon a certificate granted by Censor Board
of India under the Cinematography Act,
1982 should be allowed to be freely
screened and viewed by public at large,
whoever is willing to do so and the State
Government shall make all necessary
arrangements as are needed for the
maintenance of the law and order situation
in that behalf.

¶30

With these observations, the writ
petition stands disposed of.

¶31

 (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.

¶32

RS/

Utv Software Communicacations v. Shree Rajput Sabha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Utv Software Communicacations v. Shree Rajput Sabha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yaduvendra Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ramji Lal Goutam Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs Adj NO.2, Bundi and Ors.

Fal Sabji Kreta -Vikreta Vyapa Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Artisans Alliance Jawaja Beawa Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shyama Devi Vs State of Raj and Ors.