The respondents were duty-bound to pass orders expeditiously on any application made for censorship of a film.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

When the miscellaneous petitions are posted for hearing, by consent of parties, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal considering the limited scope of prayer asked for in the writ petitions.

2. In W.P. No. 19052/ 1993 the prayer is as follows:- To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for the grant of Censorship Certificate for their picture 'KUTTRAPATHIRIKAI' (Tamil) (Cenemascope Colour) within a time limit fixed by this court. In W. P. No. 18568 of 1993 the prayer is as follows:-

To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider the application dated 31-12-1992 of the film 'KUTRAPATHIRIKAI' (Tamil Feature film) within a period stipulated by this court.

3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 19052 of 1993 is the producer of the picture of 'KUTTRAPATHIRIKAI (Tamil) (Cinemascope colour) and the petitioner in W.P. No. 18668 of 1993 is a Distributor who has obtained the rights of distribution, exhibition, exploitation on outright lease basis for the area of the City of Madras as known in the film trade. The facts are simple.

4. Since the prayer asked for is almost similar in both the writ petitions, suffice to state the facts. The facts are as follows:- The petitioner in W.P. No. 19052 of 1993 is engaged in the production of films. It seems that he launched a Tamil film titled 'KUTTRAPATHIRIKAI' in July 1991 and the shooting of the picture commenced during Sept. 1991. The shooting of the picture was completed on 11-12-1992 and after the rerecording was completed, the first copy of the print was made ready on 18-12-1992. The petitioner made an application before the second-respondent for the grant of a Censorship certificate in terms of Section 4 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, in the prescribed form after observing all the formalities. The petitioner was required to project the film for Censorship on 3-2-1993 and it was accordingly done by the petitioner at Madras. The Examination Committee comprising of the Regional Officer of the Second respondent Board and four other members saw the picture on 3-2-1993. After the picture was witnessed, the second respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner on 10-2-1993 requesting him to send a print of the film immediately to the Technical Officer, Films Division, New Delhi and to the Film Facilities Officer, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi. The petitioner was not aware on what grounds the petitioner was required to send the print to New Delhi. However, in view of the directions issued by the second respondent, the petitioner personally submitted a print to the Film Facilities Officer, New Delhi with due intimation to the second respondent. A declaration was obtained from the petitioner that no alteration of any kind was made in the copy of the print of the film presented to the film Facilities Officer, New Delhi, for examination, and that the print was the same as shown to the Committee at Madras. It seems that the Film Facilities Officer as well as the Technical Officer of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry saw the film. It is also stated that the film was also seen by the Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, the Secretary Joint Secretary and higher officials of the Government of India. It is allaged that even though such higher officials had witnessed the film, the petitioner was not given any reply either granting or directing modification or refusing censorship certificate or directing modification of the film as contemplated by the Act and rules made thereunder. The petitioner has been repeatedly reminding the first and second respondents in this regard. Ultimately the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondents on 29-9-1993 with copies marked 'to the Minister for information and Broadcasting and the Secretary of the said Ministry. The petitioner has narrated the reasons in