Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑ S. 9‑Exhibition of film‑Suspension‑Petitioners contending to have acquired proprietary rights in film and affected seriously by order of suspension without giving opportunity of being heard Order set aside with direction to respondent to afford petitioner an opportunity of being heard allow them to tender proof of their proprietary rights in film and then pass fresh orders in accordance with law‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9.‑[Natural justice, principle of].

Ch. Nawab‑ud‑Din Mahmood for Petitioner.. Syed Iftikhar Ahmad, Dy. A.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing : 26th April, 1982.

A punjabi film by the name of Notan da hadsha' produced by M/s. Afzal Ahmad, Khawar Qamar Khan, was duly passed by Central Board of Films Censors and a certificate dated 29th May, 1979 declaring the film as fit for exhibition issued in their favour. According to the petitioners, this film was purchased by them from the procedure under the agreement Annexure F' and distributed for exhibition to different cinemas in the Province. On 30th January, 1981 while the film was being exhibited in Sanobar' Cinema, Lahore, the Film Inspector Central Board of Films Censors Lahore, alongwith a local Magistrate conducted a raid and found that the portions of music dance. of a song which had been excised by the board at the time of certification of the film were being exhibited in contravention of the Motion Picture Ordinance, 1979. Accordingly, on their demand, the Cinema Management excised the objectionable portion of the film .in question and handed it over to the Inspector.

2. A show‑cause notice was issued to the Producers by the Central Board of Films Censors which having remained unheard, they were pro ceeded against ex parte and by means of a notification dated 25th February, 1982 in exercise of the powers vested in the Board under, section 9 (1) of the Ordinance, the exhibition of the film was suspended for a period of one year. The validity of this notification has been called in question by the petitioners through judicial review.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised various contentions but his main argument, however, was that the proprietary rights in the film having been acquired by them, they alone had been adversely affected but before passing the impugned order they were not given any opportunity of being heard. It was submitted that after its sale, the Producers had no interest in the Film and, therefore, were not interested in defending the case.

It was thus urged that the notification was violative of principles of natural justice and thus could not be sustained.

4. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General, has refuted the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners: However, he has no serious objection in granting aright of hearing to them provided they substantiate that the proprietary rights in the Film have been acquired by them. This being.. the position, the other points urged by the petitioners need not be determined.

5. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is accepted and the impugned order set aside. The petitioners shall be afforded an opportunity' of being heard and also allowed to tender necessary proof in support of their cinema that the proprietary rights in the Film vest in them. The concerned respondent shall dispose of the case expeditiously preferably, within two months, and pass a fresh order, in accordance with law. However, the exhibition of the Film shall remain stayed, until allowed by the board. The parties are left to beat their own costs.

M. Y. H., Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.