IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32237 of 2011(D) ----------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- P.A. RASHEED, FILM PRODUCER, KULTHAR CREATIONS, V.K. COMPLEX, FORT ROAD, KANNUR, PIN - 670 001. BY ADVS. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI.DIJO SEBASTIAN SMT.VINEETHA SUSAN THOMAS SMT.JASMY KATTOOR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE CHALACHITRA ACADEMY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 010. 2. SHRI. PRIYADARSHAN, CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE CHALACHITRA ACADEMY, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 010. 3. SHRI. K.B. GANESHKUMAR, HON'BLE MINISTER FOR FOREST, CINEMA AND SPORTS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001. 4. SHRI. K. KUNHIKRISHNAN, CHAIRMAN, PREVIEW COMMITTEE (SELECTION COMMITTEE) FOR COMPETITION SECTION, 16TH INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF KERALA, RESIDING AT 169 E, LAKSHMI, SILVERLINE, T.P. NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 010. ...2/- WP(C).No. 32237 of 2011(D) -2- 5. DR. DOMINIC J. KATTOOR, MEMBER, PREVIEW COMMITTEE (SELECTION COMMITTEE) FOR COMPETITION SECTION, 16TH INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF KERALA, CHALACHITRA ACADEMY, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 010. 6. MR. SHAJIYEM, MEMBER, PREVIEW COMMITTEE (SELECTION COMMITTEE) FOR COMPETITION SECTION, 16TH INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF KERALA, CHALACHITRA ACADEMY, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 010. 7. RENU RAMANATHAN, MEMBER, PREVIEW COMMITTEE (SELECTION COMMITTEE) FOR COMPETITION SECTION, 16TH INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF KERALA, CHALACHITRA ACADEMY, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 010. R1 BY ADV. SRI. ASHOK M. CHERIAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...3/- WP(C).No. 32237 of 2011(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE REGULATIONS OF 16TH INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF KERALA, PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE ACADEMY DATED NIL. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE SELECT LIST OF FILMS OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE OF 16TH INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL OF KERALA DATED NIL. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE NEWS ABOUT THE SELECTION OF FILMS IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION PUBLISHED IN THE METRO MANORAMA DATED 12-11-2011. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE SELECTION INTIMATION FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 25-11-2011. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN THE HINDU DATED 18-11-2011. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 25-11-2011. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE EMAIL TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29-11-2011. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE NEWS APPEARED IN MANORAMA DATED 26-11-2011. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE NEWS THAT APPEARED IN MANORAMA DATED 01-12-2011. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE NEWS THAT APPEARED IN DESHABHIMANI DATED 01-12-2011. EXT.P11 COPY OF THE AUTHORISATION GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER'S LABORATORY AT BOMBAY DATED 16-11-2011. EXT.P12 COPY OF THE NEWS THAT APPEARED IN THE HINDU DATED 02-12-2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 32237 of 2011 D ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner is the Producer of a Feature Film “Aadimadhyantham”. By Ext.P4, the first respondent informed the petitioner that his film has been selected for the competition section of the 16th International Film Festival of Kerala. This letter was issued on 25.11.2011. On 25.11.2011 itself, the first respondent issued the petitioner Ext.P6 show cause notice, which reads thus:- “As per article for (1) of the Regulations of the 16th IFFK along with the Entry Form an undertaking certifying the date of completion of the film should be submitted. You have submitted an application dated 28.09.2011 for your film “Aadimadhyantham” at Academy along with an undertaking and stating that your film had been completed before 30th September, 2011. So, we have considered W.P.(C) No.32237/2011 : 2 : your film fully relying your application as well as undertaking. It was shown as a completed film to the Selection Committee. Now it has been brought to our notice that: (1) The DVD was submitted without any title or English subtitle. (2) The DVD submitted was not a completed work. (3) It was reported that shooting and post production work of “Aadimadhyantham” was done even after submission of the DVD for the competition section. We request you to kindly explain the circumstances in which you have filed a wrong undertaking. You may meet me with a written explanation within 3 days i.e, by 29th November, 2011 failing which the Festival Director will take necessary further action.” 2. On receipt of Ext.P6, the Director of the Movie gave Ext.P7 reply, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:- “As mentioned in your letter the reports came out about the completion of W.P.(C) No.32237/2011 : 3 : work are absolutely baseless. Our shooting never went on after submitting the entry form and DVD. Even a single scene is not added with the film apart from the given DVD. Only color correction, DI, graphics, sound level enhancing etc. are done after submitting the entry. You can compare the film print with the given DVD. If a single scene is added extra you can find and ask explanation from us. We strongly believe that the given DVD is titled. We have never received any such information from Academy that the film is not titled during any stage of screening or scrootning. If informed, we could have sent a second copy in case any technical missing happened while writing DVD. Given DVD was not subtitled as we didn't know DVD without subtitles would not be accepted. The statement about the date of completion was sent later as we were informed by Academy that such a document W.P.(C) No.32237/2011 : 4 : was not submitted. Academy asked us to deliver such a statement stating the completion was done before 30th of September. Sir, kindly make sure all the dilemma to an end. Much news and gossips are coming out in some medias about our film which deeply hurt the feeling of all our crew members. Please take necessary actions from Chalachithra Academy.” 3. Accordingly, selection of the movie was cancelled and it is aggrieved by the above, this writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 not to cancel the selection given as per Ext.P4 to the petitioner's film “Aadimadhyantham” for International Film Festival competition, 16th International Film Festival of Kerala at Thiruvananthapuram, as threatened in Exts.P6, P8 to P10. (ii) To declare that the selection W.P.(C) No.32237/2011 : 5 : given to the petitioner's film vide Ext.P4 is not liable to be cancelled by R1 to 3 as threatened in Exts.P6, p8 to P10, for which they have no power or authority as per the Regulations. (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to permit the screening of the petitioner's film “Aadimadhyantham” for International Film Festival Competition in the 16th IFFK at Thiruvananthapuram, as has been decided in Ext.P4. (iv) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ quashing the decision, if any taken by respondents 1 to 3, behind his back, to cancel the selection of the petitioner's film for competition in the 16th International Film Festival of Kerala, after calling for the same, being arbitrary and illegal.” 4. I heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the Standing counsel appearing for the W.P.(C) No.32237/2011 : 6 : first respondent. 5. Ext.P1 is the Regulations for the Film Festival in question. Rule 3 provides for the requirements that the movie should satisfy for being selected by the Selection Committee. Among various requirements, one of the requirements is that films that have been produced and having English subtitles are eligible to participate. It can be seen from Ext.P7, reply filed by the petitioner to Ext.P6 show cause notice, that “Given DVD was not subtitled as we didn't know DVD without subtitles would not be accepted”. Therefore, the fact that the movie was not having English subtitles is admitted by the petitioner in Ext.P7. The fact has been admitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also. However, learned Senior Counsel relied on clause 3.2.9 of Ext.P1 which provides that works in progress will also be considered. Therefore, according to him, even in the absence of subtitles, the movie was eligible to be considered. Although, prima facie, this provision of Ext.P1 entitles a movie which is not fully completed also to be considered for selection, learned W.P.(C) No.32237/2011 : 7 : Standing Counsel for the first respondent produced before me an undertaking dated 04.10.2011, submitted by the petitioner which reads “This is to certify that the film named “Aadimadhyandham”, produced by me, written and directed by sherry has been completed all the work before September 30, 2011. So please consider my film for IFFK, 2011”. Therefore, it was not the case of the petitioner that the movie was an incomplete film and the movie was submitted on the basis that it was a completed one. In such a case, petitioner cannot now rely on the provisions of Ext.P1, which enable inclusion of incomplete works also. 6. Thus, it was the admitted position that the DVD submitted by the petitioner did not have subtitles. A movie which did not have subtitles was ineligible to be selected, in view of Article 3 of Ext.P1. In such circumstances, irrespective of all other allegations raised by the petitioner, his movie was not eligible to be selected. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner then contended that selection by a Selection Committee appointed W.P.(C) No.32237/2011 : 8 : by the first respondent cannot be cancelled by any other authority. In my view, if the selection committee has committed a patent illegality in selecting a movie which admittedly is ineligible, it is open to the superior authority, viz., the first respondent, to undo such an illegality. Counsel then placed reliance on Ext.P12, a news paper report, which contains the statement made by the Chairman of the Selection Committee to the effect that the DVD of the film that the Selection Committee saw was a complete one. However, such an assertion made by the Chairman is against the petitioner's own admission in Ext.P7. Therefore, Ext.P12 cannot improve the case of the petitioner in any manner. 8. I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. Writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/03/12 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge