ssp 1 WP 2333 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2333 of 2011 The Indian Performing Right Society Limited .....Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.325 OF 2011 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.326 OF 2011 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.327 OF 2011 Mr.Sandeep Marne, for the petitioner. Ms.P.A.Purandare, for the respondent-MCGM. Mr.R.R.Bhosale, AGP, for the State. Mr.Kaushik Kothari i/by Mr.Virendra Kanojia, for the aplicant in CHS No. 325 of 2011 and 326 of 2011. Mr.A.R.Pande i/by Mr.A.A.Pande, for the applicant in CHS No.327 of 2011. Mr.Amit Jamsandekar with Mr.S.V.Kadam i/by Kadam and Co., for the Intervenor. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 13th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C. : 1. The above petition is filed by the Indian Performing Right Society Limited, which is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is also a Copyright Society registered under the Copyrights Act, 1957. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the intimation/order passed by the Chairman, Stage Performance Scrutiny ssp 2 WP 2333 of 2011 Board, which is a Government Board established under Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, by which the said Board, for the purpose of issuing suitability certificate, has issued a notice stating that since the Board has received complaints that the Managers of some of the auditorium do not accept amounts towards rent for booking of dates for programmes despite permission of the Board, instructions has been issued that FIR should be registered against the petitioner with the concerned police Station, as according to the said Board, the petitioner who is a Performing Right Society, has no right to insist for NOC which is to be produced before the concerned auditorium. According to the Scrutiny Board, the petitioner has no right to insist for NOC or licence for organizing the show at public places. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the said notice/intimation given by the respondent-Board asking the concerned auditorium or the persons who is letting out the premises for organizing the show, to lodge FIR against the petitioner, as according to the said Board, the petitioner society has no jurisdiction to give any directions to the auditorium not to take booking from the concerned organizer and to obtain consent of the petitioner and unless such consent is obtained by the organizer of the programme, concerned organizer should not accept booking for such programmes. According to the ssp 3 WP 2333 of 2011 respondent-Board, the petitioner society has no authority to take their prior consent before organizing such programme. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s society is functioning under the Copyright Act and the songs which are registered with the petitioner’s society under the Copyright Act, cannot be allowed to be exhibited in a commercial show by anyone except taking licence or permission from the petitioner’s society. 3. Today, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not given any directions to any auditorium or any authority who is permitting such performance or making available any premises for exhibiting film songs, that prior licence/permission of the petitioner must be obtained by the person who is performing stage show before accepting booking for such function/show. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not going to insist for their prior permission from the organizer in connection with the programme which such organizer is going to organize. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in any case, the petitioner society has all the right to take appropriate legal proceedings against such person who violates the copyright in connection with a particular song which is registered with the petitioner’s society and for that purpose, the petitioner society can take civil or criminal proceedings ssp 4 WP 2333 of 2011 against the organizer as well as against the person who has let out the premises for such purpose. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the provisions of Section 51 of the Copyright Act, if any auditorium or owner of any place, who accepts bookings for holding any programme and if it is found that while performing the show, there is infringement of copyright in connection with a particular song, the petitioner Society can take action against the organizers as well as against person who is giving premises to organize the show. 4. In this view of the matter, nothing further is required to be considered in this petition, except recording the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the said statement, the petitioner is directed not to insist for any NOC or licence asking the auditorium not to book such programme without such licence or permission and such owners of the premises/auditorium are free to accept such booking even if there is no NOC or licence from the petitioner’s is produced. However, it is clarified that in case according to the petitioner’s society, while performing the show, there is a breach of copyright in connection with the particular song or item, the petitioner will be free to take out legal proceedings before the appropriate Court either civil or criminal in view of Section 51 of the said Act, both against the organizers as well as the person who is letting out the premises for such show. That right of the petitioner’s ssp 5 WP 2333 of 2011 society is kept intact. It is for the organizers as well as the person who let out the premises, to consider this aspect while organizing the show and in case if it is found to be a breach of Copyright Act, it is for the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner states that no instructions is given, nor it will be given to any auditorium or person who is letting out the premises for such public show regarding producing prior permission or licence of the petitioner, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent-Board, states that the State is also withdrawing the directions given to various auditoriums or other people vide letter dated 10-08-2011 for filing FIR against the petitioner. The learned AGP submits that he is making the above statement in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which we have recorded above regarding not insisting for their NOC at the time of performance of the show by the organizer. The learned AGP submits that he is making the above statement in view of the instructions received by him from Mr.Garud, Superintendent of the Board. The above statement of the learned AGP is also recorded. Accordingly, the directions given by the respondent-Board regarding lodging of the FIR against the petitioner, stands withdrawn. 6. In view of the above, nothing further is required to be done, except upholding the right of the petitioner to take out legal proceedings ssp 6 WP 2333 of 2011 as indicated above and it will be open to the concerned person to defend the proceedings in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. 7. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the above chamber summons does not survive and the same are accordingly disposed of. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )