The High Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ under Art.226 of the Constitution to the Central Government as the Central Government is not located within the jurisdiction of the High Court.

COYAJEE, J.:- This petition is presented by petitioner No.1, a private limited company, and petitioner No.2, who is a director of that company challenging the validity of a certain order dated 7-4-1954, emanating from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and signed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India exercising powers under S.5, sub-s. (4), of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, on behalf of the Central Government directing that certain parts of a film "Prisoner of Golconda" should be excised from all copies of the film and for production of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Censors for a proper amendment.

This order was served on petitioner No.2 in Bombay. According to the petition, the petitioners produced a certain film called "Prisoner of Golconda" at a very heavy cost and thereafter approached the Central Board of Film Censors in Bombay. That Board made certain cuts and amendments. Aggrieved by that the petitioners went to the Revising Committee of the Central Board under R.26.

The film was then examined by the Revising Committee of the Central Board of Film Censors on 4-3-1954, and that Committee passed the film subject to certain cuts, reductions and deletions. A "U" certificate as contemplated by the Rules was issued on 9-3-1954. It appears that thereafter the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting intervened under S.5 of the Act and passed the order which I have just set out above under the signature of the Under-Secretary calling upon petitioner No.2 to excise certain sequences specified in the schedule to that order and intimating to him that in the event of non-compliance the film would be declared as an uncertified film.

This notification is issued under S.6(c) of the Cinematograph Act suspending the exhibition of this picture for a month. It appears that the petitioners subjected themselves to this requisition and the film was dealt with in accordance with this order where after a certificate was duly issued and thereafter they have been releasing this film in a truncated form at several places including Bombay and Nagpur.

In the petition the petitioners have challenged the validity of S.5, sub-s. (4), and S.6 of the Act and contended that these sections are void as uncontrolled, unfettered and unregulated power has been conferred by this statute and this is an unreasonable limitation on the freedom of speech and proprietary rights of the petitioners. In para.22 the petitioners set out that the administrative office of the respondent is in Bombay, the film was produced in Bombay and was examined and certified by the Central Board of Film Censors in Bombay, the censor certificate was issued in Bombay and the order complained of, namely, of 7-4-1954, was served upon petitioner No.2 in Bombay and therefore they contend that this High Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition.

The relief asked for is that the Court should issue an appropriate writ under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, to cancel, withdraw or set aside the said order of 7-4-1954, and restraining the Union of India from giving effect to the said order. Other alternative writs are prayed for as set out in prayer (b) against the Union of India.

2. At the hearing of the petition, the Attorney General on behalf of the Union of India has raised a preliminary point, namely, whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition, because it is contended that this Court has no jurisdiction and that goes to the root of the matter and that in that event it would be unnecessary for the Court to embark upon an investigation on the other issues raised on the face of the petition.

It may be noted that, as I have indicated above, the relief asked for is only against the order of the Ministry of Information, Ex. E. to the petition, whose order dated 7-4-1954, is challenged. At the same time I may note that it was conceded on behalf of the respondent that the office of the Central Board of Film Censors is situa