High CourtsSingle Bench(2005) 01 MAD CK 0079

Louie III Films vs The Regional Officer, Central Board of Certification

Madras High Court · Decided on 18 January 2005

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.K. Rajan, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 32322 of 2004 and W.P.M.P. No. 39135 and 39136 of 2004

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 342 words

A.K. Rajan, J.—This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the

respondent dated 25.9.2004 made in No. CIL/107/04/1712/04 denying to issue Censor Certificate to the petitioner''s film ""Pillayar Pattiyum

Kandu Vattiyum"".

2.

Along with the writ petition, WPMP No. 39136 of 2004 has been filed to direct the respondent to issue necessary Censor Certificate for the

petitioner''s movie ""Pillayar Pattiyum Kandu Vattiyum"".

3.

This film was originally released in Malayalam. Rights of the film has been obtained by the petitioner and the film has been re-made in Tamil and

titled as above. When this film was sent for certification, the respondent turned down the request and passed the impugned order, which reads as

under,

On examination, it has been found that your film has been mostly dubbed from a Malayalam Film. Hence you are requested to submit your

application at our Thiruvananthapuram Regional Office for certification, as dubbed film.

From the above, it appears that the respondent has already seen the movie. As stated already, there is no reason for the respondent to say that it is

a dubbed film. What is stated is ''your film has been mostly dubbed from a Malayalam Film''. The respondent contends that Sensor Certificate for

all dubbed film has to be obtained only from the Board where the certificate for the original film was obtained. The respondent after seeing the film

can either grant certificate or reject certification. They can also say that the film is unfit for the public exhibition. Instead of doing so, it cannot direct

the petitioner to approach another Regional Board in Kerala. It is possible for the respondent directly to send the film to the Central Board. But

instead of doing that, passed the impugned order, which is not legally sustainable.

4.

therefore, the respondent is directed to pass orders either granting or refusing certificate within a period of one week from the date of receipt of

copy of this order. Connected WPMPs are closed. No costs.