LexPAZHASSI RAJA CHARITABLE TRUST & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
""" [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1290 ' ' A PAZHASSI RAJA CHARITABLE TRUST & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. " (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 32840 of 2009) B DECEMBER 02, 2009 [TARUN CHATTERJEE ,AND SURINDER SIN~H NIJJAR, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: c " Articles 136, and 142 rAt1 Article 21 - Filing of SLP without availing remedy of Letters Patent appeal "I'"" Screening of film at International Film Festival of India, 2009 - Refusal by Feature Film Jury - Writ petition before High Court for D seeking direction for screening the film as . a special entry - Application for interim order rejected - Plea that remedy of Letters Patent appeal was available, but in the case of flagrant ... breach of statutory rules of mandatory nature, Court could mould relief under Article 142 - HELD: The Court can grant E relief in cases where manifest injustice has been done or where there is manifest illegality or manifest want of jurisdiction - In the instant case, the issue is of a purely commercial venture, w/1ere the film in question is vying ;ur fame with another commercial film - It is not disputed that the F film in question has already been releasEJd on the commercial sectors - In any evl}_nt, the film is a view point of the individuals or the te9!T1 involved in the production of the film -Article 21 can not be said to have been infringed in the facts and circumstances of the case - It can also not be sf!i~ that without grant of interim relief the petitioner would be r3ndered G remedy-Jess - In case it is ultimately found by t11e: High Court \~- or in any other proceedings that the Jury/selectors have acted arbitrarily or in infringement Oi the statutory regulations, remedy of damages by way of a civil suit would always be -~ H 1290 PAZHASSI RAJA CHARITABLE TRUST & ANR. v. 1291 UNION OF INDIA ,. available to the petitioner - Thus. the petitioner has not been rendered remedy-less merely by denial of interim relief - A Besides, the film of the petitioner has to compete with all other entries - Its entry was dependent upon the relative merit assessment by the panel of jurors - Its merit cannot be adjudged individually - The facts and circumstances in the B case were not such as to permit the petitioner to bypass the normal procedure of filing of Letters Patent appeal against the , order of Single Judge of High Court before approaching the Supreme Court by special leave petition - Indian Panorama Regulations, 2009 - Regulation 8. 2 - Films - Interim orders c - Practice and Procedure. Indian Panorama Regulations, 2009: Regulation 8. 2 - Feature Film Jury - Selection of films to be screened at laterna'fional Film Festival - Writ petition D before High Court- Interim relief not granted- HELD: In view of Regulation 8.2, the Chairperson of the Feature Film Jury has the power to constitute a maximum two panels, for viewing all the films and to recommend not more than 33 % of the films to be viewed by the full Jury - High Court has correctly E observed that all the issues relating to constitution of panels will be determined at the final hearing, upon receipt of the -' counter of the respondents - The Court normally would not substitute its own opinion for that of the experts - Decision about the quality and merit of the film of the petitioner can F only be taken in comparison to other entries - That is the job of the experts - There is no reason to differ with the view expressed by the High Court - Order of High Court declining •\ to grant interim relief cannot be said to be as either illegal or erroneous - It cannot be said that there was any change in the criteria - Interim orders - Constitution of India, 1950 - G ... Articles 136, 142 and 21 . Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2003) 11 SCC 241, held inapplicable. H 1292 SUPREME· COURT REPORTS (2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R A Dhannalal vs. Ka/awatibai and others (2002) 6 SCC 16, B referred to. Case Law Reference: (2003) 11 sec 241 (2002) 6 sec 16 held inappliocable para 7 relied on para 8 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. 32840 of 2009. C From the Judgment & Order dated 26.11.2009 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.M. Application No. 14682 of 2009 in Writ Petition (C) No. 13352 of 2009 . • Krishnan Venugopal, Deepak Prakash, Usha Nandini, Abir D Pukan & Biju Raman, M.P. Vinod for the Petitioners. E Ashok Bhan, Sunit Sharma, D.S. Mahara for the Respondents. T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.