Dismissed

Sri Natti Kumar v. The Chief Election commissioner of India

Telangana HC7 Dec 2023WP/30978/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a petition challenging the composition of the censorship committee for the film 'VYUHAM' on grounds of political neutrality before elections, held that the cause of action no longer survives and dismissed the petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

Sri Natti Kumar Vs The Chief Election… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132521

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3097 I OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri Natti Kumar, S/o. N. Venkat Rao, Aged about 50 years, Occuoation Producer Office at H.No. Flat No.202I Hasini Resi'dency,^- H.f.tb-A-g_ 658/5,Jayaprakash Nagar,^{yellareddyguda,} Hyderabad - 500 O7C, Tetangana State.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Chief Election commissioner of lndia , Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 1'10001

¶13

The Union Sgcrelqry,. Ministry.of lnformation and Broad casting, Dr Rajendra Prasad Rd, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi, Delhi 110001

¶14

The chief Electoral officer, Telangana Election commission of lndia, office at, 9th Floor, B.R.K.R Building, Adarih Nagar, Hyderabad- 500063, State of Telangana.

¶15

The Chairman, Central Board of Film Certification, 9th Floor, 24, pedder Rd, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai, State of Maharashtra 400026

¶16

The CEO, Central Board of Film Certification, 9th Ftoor, 24, pedder Rd, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai, State of Maharashtra 400026

¶17

The Secretary, Central Board of Film Certification, No. 206, CGO Towers, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad - 500 080.

¶18

The Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification, No. 206, CGO Towers, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad - 500 080.

¶19

M/s. Ramaduta Creations, Represented by its producer Dasari Kiran Kumar Office at Plot No. 237lA, _Flat No- 301, Addagutta, HtvtT Cotony, Bhagya Nir^ga1l(ukatpally, HYDERABAD Rangareddy District, State cif tetaigana - 500 072,

¶20

RGV DEN, Rep by its Director Ram Gopat Varma, No. CC95 plus HGp, Road No.71, Navanirman Nagar Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033. State of Telangana.

¶21

Ram Gopal Varma, Film Director, No. CC95 plus HGp, Road No.71, Navanirman Nagar Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 5OO OSe, Statb ot Telangana.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High^-co'urt may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th Respondent who is appointing authority of the Regional committee that the 7th Respondent at present'namely smt. Jeevitha Rajasekhar to avoid for attending and watching the movie for issuing the censor certificate for the present movie VyUHAM only., and direct the 4th Respondent to appoint another committee headed by^-other language Regional officer or appoint a special committee consisting of non political le"aders for issuing the Censor certificate for the film VYUHAM.; Otherwise the political scenario will change as suspected by the petitioner herein and one of the political party will get advantage in General Elections 2024 for the state of T elangana 2024.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶25

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 4th Respondent who is appointing authority of the Regircnal committee not to appoint any committee for watching the movie for issuing the censor certificate for the present movie vyuHAM only., till disposal of thJ present writ Petition.

¶26

lA NO: 2 OF 2o23

¶27

Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct reslrain the producers who are the gth and 9th Respond'ents from releasing and telecasting the trailers and also releasing the scenes in the name of promotion of the film "vyuHAM" till completion of General election in Telangana slate.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KESApURAM SUDHAKAR

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRt MOHAMMED OMER FAROOQ

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 to 7: SRt cADt PRAVEEN KUMAR,

¶31

DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.8 & 10: SRt RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAyt

¶33

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶34

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶35

WRIT PETITION 0.30978 0F 2023

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as follows:

¶38

"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th Respondent who ts appointing authority of the Regional committee that the 7th Respondent at present namely Smt Jeevitha Rajasekhar to avoid for attending and watching the movie for issuing the censor certificate for the present movie "VYUHAM" only and direct the 4th Respondent to appoint another committee headed by other language Regional officer or appoint a special committee consisting of non political leaders for issuing the Censor certificate for the film "VYUHAM" Otherwise the political scenario will change as suspected by the Petitioner herein and one of the political party will get advantage in General Elections 2024 for the state of Telangana 2024 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Cou rt deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶39

2. Learned counsel For the petitioner brings to the notice oF

¶40

this Court that the cause of action in the^present writ^petition does not survive for adjudication any more.

wP logra Io23

Bringing the said submission of learned counsel for the

¶45

petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶46

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶48

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶49

SD/. P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE CoPY// \tSECTION OFFICER

¶50

To, 1. One CC to SRI KESAPURAIU^{SUDHAKAR' AdvocatetOP-U-C-l} ^- 2. One cc i; sRi rr/lbnnrr/lrueo^{oMER FARooQ,Advocate[oPUC]} 3. Two CD Copies BN GJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:0711212023

ORDER

WP.No.30978 of 2023

,j
1 6E ST4p 6'
(
q
f,
iI
O 0 3 JAN 2024 3
<br>t
D5e oaT Ct\9C *

¶56

DISMISS!NG THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

C-,
\r/

Sri Natti Kumar v. The Chief Election commissioner of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Natti Kumar v. The Chief Election commissioner of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Mahesh Vs State of Telangana

Sri. B. Venkateswara Rao, Vs Chairman and Managing Director

Orsu Thirupathayya Vs The Union of India

Panchaneni Manohar Rao Vs The Union of India

V. Venkatanarasimha Rao Vs The Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

B. Rajaiah Vs Sri Navin Mittal, I.A.S