2017 (11) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... : Mr. A. Ashvathaman ORDER ( Order of the Court was made by M. M. Sundresh, J. ) This pro bono publico is filed by the petitioner, who is a practising lawyer, seeking a direction to the first respondent to revoke the censor certificate issued by the second respondent for the movie 'Mersal'. 2.The petitioner would submit that some of the scenes in the movie depicted wrong facts....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sued to the first respondent to act in accordance with Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3.The petitioner cannot be stated to be a person aggrieved. After all, the second respondent is the competent authority to consider as to whether the film requires a proper certification or not. The certification given by the second respondent has not b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....said provisions in a case of this nature. 5.The petitioner has rushed to this Court in a hurry after giving a representation on 20.10.2017 Friday at about 8 p.m. The writ petition was filed on 23.10.2017 (Monday). Therefore, without even waiting for the first respondent to act, even for exercising his power, if otherwise exercisable under Section 6(2) of the Act, the petitioner has rushed to th....