- (1.) The reliefs, which have been sought in these proceedings purportedly filed in the public interest, are as follows: "(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent No.1, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to immediately remove Ms Leela Samson, Chairman, Central Board of Film Certification (Censor Board for short-Respondent No.2) from her post and to dissolve the entire Censor Board by removing all its present members for their anti-Hindu attitude whereby they have been acting incessantly against the statutory provisions under the Cinematographer's Act 1952 (the Act, for short) as explained in the Writ Petition. (b) Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent No.1 to appoint a retired Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court Judge as the Chairman of the Censor Board along with a few retired/serving IAS and IPS officers considering the statutory nature of work done by the censor Board along with a few members of various religious groups like the Hindu Personal Law Board, the Muslim Personal Law Board and others to take consideration of the religious sentiments of the various important religious groups. (c) Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent No.4, the Central Bureau of Investigation to enquire into the way presently dates of release of feature films get fixed even before the submission of the film before the respondent No.2, Censor Board and the films actually get released on those pre-announced dates which gives a very strong inkling that some kind of illicit and improper collusion remains between the Censor Board and the film makers which makes the film makers so confident as to announce the date of release even much earlier than the film has been submitted for certificate before the Censor Board."
(2.) The petitioner had filed an earlier petition, being Misc. Bench Petition No.10220 of 2013, seeking identical reliefs. On 31.10.2013, a Division Bench of this Court observed that despite the amendments, which have been brought into force in Chapter XXII Rule 1 (3A) of the Rules of this Court, following a decision of the Supreme Court, the petition did not disclose anything about the credentials of the petitioner or of his antecedents. The coordinate Bench directed that the petition would have to be heard as a Public Interest Litigation. Accordingly, when the petition came up before the Division Bench, it was dismissed by an order dated 07 November 2013. The Division Bench observed that once the petition has been directed to be treated as a Public Interest Litigation, there was no question of the petitioner denying to file an affidavit in fulfillment of the requirement of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court. The Division Bench, while dismissing the petition, observed as follows:- "Since in the instant case neither any averment on affidavit in terms of requirement of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court has been made in the writ petition nor any such intention has been shown by Sri Pande who appears in person for the petitioner-organization in his capacity as its President, as such we are constrained to hold that writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at its admission stage."
(3.) Now a petition has been filed afresh on an identical cause of action by the same party. The earlier order of the Division Bench dated 07 November 2013 specifically records that not merely was no disclosure in terms of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court made, no such intention has been shown by Sri Pande, who appears in person for the petitioner in his capacity as its President. In fact, the Division Bench also commented on the petitioner denying to file an affidavit in compliance of the requirement of the Rules. The petitioner has a grievance in regard to the order passed by the coordinate Division Bench on 07 November 2013. Obviously, the remedy cannot lie before this Bench.;