1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.28 OF 2009 M/s.Pranjali Films : Petitioner versus Dr.Mrs.Joycee Shankaran & ors. : Respondents. Shri.N V Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner Shri D A Patil, AGP, for the State-Respondents. Shri R S Apte, i/by N R Bubna for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 12, 2009 P.C. 1. The contempt alleged is of the order dated 18th February 2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. In so far as the above Contempt Petition is concerned, Paragraph 18 of the said order is relevant and is reproduced herein under :- “Paragraph 18 :- In this Petition, the Petitioners 2 have made out a case for grant of an appropriate Writ to consider the Petitioners films for recommendation by the Chitranagari and final decision by the State Government under the G.R dated 6th November 2003.” 2. It appears that a meeting was held by the Respondent No.2 i.e. Chitranagari on 10th July 2008. The minutes of which meeting are on page 27. In the said meeting, it was decided to ask the Petitioner to submit the reels of the film in question. There is a dispute as regards whether any communication was received by the Petitioner pursuant to the said Minutes. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Shri Bandiwadekar states that no intimation was received by the Petitioner though the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 states that in fact such intimation was sent. 3. Be that as it may, Shri D A Patil, the learned AGP for the State-Respondents makes a statement that if the reel of the concerned film is submitted by the Petitioner, the same would be 3 referred to the Screening Committee. The learned AGP further states that there is one difficult in the way at present viz the term of the earlier screening committee having expired, at present there is no screening committee. The learned AGP further states, on instructions of Ms.Joshi, the Deputy Secretary, Cultural Affairs Department, who is personally present in Court, that a proposal for constituting a new screening committee is pending decision of the State Government and that a decision would be taken within a short period i.e may be within four to six weeks. In fact, according to the learned AGP, the proposal contains even the names of the proposed members of the screening committee. The learned AGP further makes a statement that as soon as the screening committee is constituted, the Petitioner would be informed of the same and called upon to submit the reel of the film in question. The screening committee would, thereafter, take a decision in respect of the film in question within four weeks of the receipt of the reel from the Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has no objection to the said cause of action being followed. It is expected that the statements made by the learned AGP on 4 instructions of the Deputy Secretary would be adhered to and complied with as the Petitioner is waiting since January 2008. The learned AGP is directed to submit a compliance report to this Court within a period of ten weeks from date. 4. In the light of the order passed above, the Contempt Petition is disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]