https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350219 The Court declined to direct revocation of a film's censor certificate because the petitioner was not shown to be a person aggrieved, and the certification granted by the competent authority had not been independently challenged. It held that Section 6(1) and Section 6(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 could not be invoked on the facts, particularly where the petitioner had approached the Court before waiting for action on the representation. The Court also noted that the film's content was a matter of expression to be viewed by the audience in its own perspective, and the request for revocation was therefore not made out. en-us Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Nov 2017 07:49:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350219 The Court declined to direct revocation of a film's censor certificate because the petitioner was not shown to be a person aggrieved, and the certification granted by the competent authority had not been independently challenged. It held that Section 6(1) and Section 6(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 could not be invoked on the facts, particularly where the petitioner had approached the Court before waiting for action on the representation. The Court also noted that the film's content was a matter of expression to be viewed by the audience in its own perspective, and the request for revocation was therefore not made out. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350219