1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1358/08 UTV Software Communication Vs. Shree Rajput Sabha & Ors. Date of order : 13/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Paras Kuhad with Shri Pancham Surana for the petitioner. Shri Bharat Vyas, AAG with Shri Sandeep Pathak for the respondent- State. ****** This writ petition has been filed, as it appears, by way of a precaution, with the prayer that the respondent no.1-Shree Rajput Sabha and respondent no.2-Shree Rajput Karni Sena and their members, agents, representatives and associated groups etc. should be directed to desist from taking any coercive action to prevent the distribution, publicity, promotion, release, screening or viewing of the film titled “Jodha Akbar” which is going to be released for viewing by the general public 2 on 15.2.2008. Shri Paras Kuhad, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the film has been granted certificate by Censor Board of India under the Cinematography Act, 1982. It is alleged that respondent nos.1 & 2 have threatened to physically obstruct the display and viewing of the film. Reference is made to various actions which are attributed to them in paras 9 to 17 of the writ petition. It is alleged that in spite of the petitioner having approached the State administration, the local police has been calling up cinemas owners informally and asking them to refrain from screening the said film. It is alleged that the action of respondent nos.1 & 2 and inaction on the part of the police administration in creating fear in the mind of general public will largely affect the viewership of the said film. A further 3 mandamus is therefore sought against the State administration and especially the local police, requiring them to take immediate preventive measures in order to maintain general peace and order in the city. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Yusuf Khan & Ors. vs. Manohar Joshi & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 696, Communist Party of India (M) vs. Bharat Kumar & Ors., (1998) 1 SCC 201 and James Martin vs. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 203. On being required, Shri Bharat Vyas, learned Addl. Advocate General has appeared for the State. He has refuted the allegation that there was any suggestion by the local administration or for that matter, by the police not to screen the film. Such an assertion cannot be accepted on mere ipse dixit of the petitioner. It is argued that State Government is fully 4 cognizant of its obligation to maintain the law and order situation. The writ petition, in any case, cannot be maintained against private bodies. So long as the petitioner does not approach the State Government authorities and the police administration and they are shown to have failed in discharging their duties, a petition on mere apprehension cannot be maintained. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as also going through the cited judgments, I find that even if the petitioner has approached this court by way of a precautionary measure, so long as it is not shown that it has approached any of the State functionaries, including the police administration and they have failed to discharge their legal obligation, writ petition on mere apprehension cannot be 5 entertained. In rule of law, however, every responsive Government is supposed to be alive to its constitutional obligations including in regard to maintenance of law and order situation. This court cannot proceed on the assumption that even if the threat perceived by the petitioner, that the screening and viewing of the film would be physically prevented by the respondents no.1 & 2 or those supporting them, may have some foundation, the State administration would not act so as to take requisite remedial measures on assessment of the given situation. Shri Bharat Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General has in any case stated that the situation that was there in the concerned States in cited cases before the Supreme Court and as is prevalent in the present case are not comparable. He has stated that the State administration is 6 fully cognizant of its responsibilities. In view of the stand taken by the State, there is no need for this Court as of now to pass any positive direction except expecting that the film having been released for viewing by general public upon a certificate granted by Censor Board of India under the Cinematography Act, 1982 should be allowed to be freely screened and viewed by public at large, whoever is willing to do so and the State Government shall make all necessary arrangements as are needed for the maintenance of the law and order situation in that behalf. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/