IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 16707 of 2011(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- R.S.PRADEEP KUMAR,13,MRA,PALKULANGARA, VALLAKADAVU.P.O,TRIVANDRUM-8. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHEESHKUMAR SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI-100001. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001. 3. THE DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001. 4. KERALA STATE CHALACHITHRA ACADEMY, SASTHAMANGALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-10, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THE SECRETARY,KERALA STATE CHALACHITHRA ACADEMY,SASTHAMANGALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-10. 6. CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION, REPRESNTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON,91-E,BHARAT BHAVAN, WALKESHWAR ROAD,MUMBAI-400006. W.P.(C) NO.16707/2011 7. THE REGIONAL OFFICE,CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION,REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL REGIONAL OFFICER,CHALACHITHRA BHAVAN,VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. *ADDL. R8 IMPLEADED 8. SMT.MEENADAS NARAYANAN, PRODUCER, MAKING OF A MAESTRO'' RESIDING AT PRTHIBHA, VIRUGAMBAKAM, CHENNAI 87. *ADDL. R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 24.6.2011 IN IA. 10007/2011. R1, 6 & 7 BY ADV. SRI.S.JAMAL, CGC R2 & R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.ASHOK M.CHERIAN,SC,CHALACHITRA ACADAMI BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.16707/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.KSCA/SFA-10/3510/G/2010 DTD. 19.3.2011. P2:- COPY OF THE CENSER CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION. P3:- COPY OF THE ENTRY FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P4;- COPY OF THE ENTRY FORM FOR KERALA STTE AWARDS FOR TELEVISION PROGRAMMES 2009. P5:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC. 12743/2011 DT.D 6.5.2011. P7:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR FOREST FILM AND SPORTS ON 13.6.2011. P8:- COPY OF THE OBJECTIVES ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE JURY. P10:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT OF THE KERALA STATE TELEVISION AWARDS 2007. ANNEXURE A1:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT. A2:- COPY OF THE CENSOR CERTIFICATE OF THE FILM MAKING OF A MAESTRO. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 16707 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August , 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he has made an entry under the category of 'Documentary Film' for an award under the Kerala State Film Awards 2010. Subsequently he came to know that his entry will not be considered for award for the reason that his was the only entry received for the above said award. Thereupon he filed a WPC 12743 of 2011 before this court and the writ petition was disposed of recording the statement that there were more than one entry and therefore his entry may be considered. Later awards were announced and the award was given to, “Making of a Maestro” an entry submitted by the 8th respondent which according to the petitioner is a video film. W.P.(C) No. 16707 OF 2011 :2 : 2. It is contended by the petitioner that the awards in question are meant only for celluloid films and not to video films. Contending that the entry submitted by the 8th respondent was ineligible, this writ petition is filed with the following prayers. “(i) Call for the records leading to the selection and announcement of the Kerala State Film Awards for the year 2010 in the category of Documentary film, in which the Video film “Making of a Maestro” was awarded under the 'Documentary Films' category. (ii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 4th respondent to conduct an enquiry with regard to the selection and announcement of the Kerala State Film Awards for the year 2010, in the category of Documentary film.” 3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 4th and 5th respondents and the petitioner has also produced W.P.(C) No. 16707 OF 2011 :3 : documents to substantiate his contentions. In the statement filed by the learned Standing Counsel it is contended that there is no provision in Exts.P1 and P3 that only documentary films done in celluloid are eligible for award. Accordingly it is contended that the entry submitted by the 8th respondent, though was of a video film, was eligible to compete for the award. 4. In paragraph 5 of the statement it is further stated as follows: “As evidenced from Ext.P1 notification the only prescription for submission of entries as contemplated in Clause 6(b) and (j), the applicants are only asked to submit a new print of the film along with the censor certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification. The format on which the film has to be submitted is neither mentioned in Ext.P1 notification nor in Ext.P3 application form. The film of the 8th respondent is W.P.(C) No. 16707 OF 2011 :4 : a documentary film of full-length.” 5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the entry submitted by the 8th respondent was eligible in terms of the provisions contained in Ext.P1, the Regulations of Kerala State Awards for Malayalam films and writings for the year 2010 and Ext.P3, the entry form to be submitted by the contestants. 6. In Ext.P1 it is stated that only films in respect of which Censor's Certificates were issued in the calendar year specified in the notification are eligible. It is the contention of the petitioner that the entry submitted by the 8th respondent is a video film and not a celluloid film. He has also referred to the various particulars to be furnished in Ext.P3 entry form. The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the provisions of the Cinematography (Certification) Rules 1983 and contended that Form 1 and Form 1A of the second schedule to the rule, film on video tape or compact video disc are certified differently from W.P.(C) No. 16707 OF 2011 :5 : celluloid films. 7. I have considered the submissions made. In my view the whole controversy in the writ petition has to be resolved in the light of the provisions contained in Ext.P1. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 8th respondent, Ext.P1 does not make any distinction between celluloid films and video films. It is true that there is a separate award for video films, but such awards are meant to be given to video films which are not documentary films and as contended by the learned Standing Counsel the entry submitted by the 8th respondent was a documentary film and therefore is eligible in terms of Ext.P1, Regulations. 8. The petitioner has referred to Annexure A1, copy of the application submitted by the 8th respondent which has been produced along with the statement filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5. Referring to this document counsel contended that the particulars to be furnished are lacking W.P.(C) No. 16707 OF 2011 :6 : in the application and hence the application, being a defective one, was liable for rejection at the threshold itself. However, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the 4th respondent, this contention is not covered by the pleadings in the writ petition and therefore cannot be urged. I am of the view that so long as Exts.P1 and P3 do not make any distinction between films made on celluloid or video films and since the film submitted by the 8th respondent is a documentary film this writ petition is devoid of merits and hence is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge