The court held that the order of suspension of the Censor Certificate was made without jurisdiction as it was not an unqualified or absolute order of suspension as contemplated by Section 7 (5) of the Cinematograph Act, 1918.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 45 of the Specific Relief, Act for cancellation of an order of suspension of the Censor Certificate of the film entitled "section 109", alleged to have been passed by the Respondent West Bengal Board of Censors constituted under the Cinematograph Act 1918 and having its office at 1 Lal Bazar Street, Calcutta.

( 2 ) ON the 12th June 1950 the petitioner produced a movie picture entitled "section 109", and on the 20th June 1950 applied for a Censor Certificate in respect of the same. On the 26th June 1950 the film was exhibited before two Inspectors of the Censor department but apparently they were not favourably impressed with the film and so the film was exhibited before the full board of Censors consisting of 12 members for their examination, on the 11th July 1950. The full board of Censors passed the film, but as according to the petitioner there was delay in issuing the certificate, the Managing Director of the petitioner interviewed Mr. R. Gupta the Home Secretary of the Government of West Bengal who was also a member of the Board of Censors and through his intervention succeeded in having the Censor Certificate issued on the 14th July, 1950.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER on or about the 18th August 1950 the film was released in three houses in Calcutta 'minar', 'bijoli' and 'chhabighar' and also at certain Mofussil houses and it continued to run in Calcutta until 21st September, 1950.

( 4 ) IN the meantime the Secretary to the Respondent Board wrote a letter dated the 2nd September 1950 to the petitioner alleging that certain additions had been made to the film since it was passed by the Board on the 11th July 1950 in consequence of' which the 11000 feet limit had been exceeded and it was pointed out that the alleged addition was an offence under the Footage Restriction Order.

( 5 ) THE charges made in the letter of the 2-9-1950 were denied by the petitioner by its letter dated the 13th September 1950.

( 6 ) ON or about the 22nd September 1950, the Secretary to the Respondent Board informed the petitioner by letter of that date that the Board's Certificate for the said film was suspended till certain additions and alterations made to the film after certification, were deleted and the cuttings from both the negative and positive prints were surrendered to the office. The petitioner was further required to get a revised version of the film certified on payment of the prescribed censorship fee and the film was not to be shown anywhere until that was done.

( 7 ) THE petitioner sent a reply to the letter of the Secretary on the 28th September 1950 and the Secretary in his turn replied to the letter of the 28th September by his letter dated the 30th September 1950.

( 8 ) IT appears that on the 7th October 1950, the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta issued an order under Section 7 (5) of the Cinematograph Act, 1918 suspending the certificate in question and the Government of West Bengal purporting to act under section 7 (6) of the said Act, had. by a notification published in the Gazette of the 13th October 1950 directed that the film should be deemed to be an uncertified film in the whole of the West Bengal State.

( 9 ) THE petitioner has not in this petition challenged the order of the Commissioner of Police dated the 7th October, 1950 nor has the petitioner challenged nor could he challenge the Government Notification dated the 13th October in this petition which was affirmed on the 12th October 1950 that is one day prior to the publication of the Notification and which was moved and upon which Rule Nisi was obtained from Mr. Justice Guha on the 12th October, 1950.

( 10 ) THE petitioner has challenged the validity of the action taken and/or order made by the letter of the 22nd September 1950 on the ground that the same was in contravention of the provisions of the Cinematograph Act and was without jurisdiction and also on the ground that it was