Cherish George vs Union Of India

Gopinath, J

The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6232/2024. The appellant/petitioner claims that he had entered into an agreement with respondents 7 and 8 for obtaining the distribution rights of cinematographic film by name 'Marivillin Gopurangal' and he had an agreement with them regarding the same and had also parted with a sum of Rs.20 lakhs on the premise that the distribution rights would be given to him.

According to the appellant/petitioner, respondents 7 and 8 had assured him that the cinema in question will be released in November, 2023, but respondents 7 and 8 did not grant any distributorship rights over the film and they did not also return the amount of Rs.20 lakhs collected from the appellant/petitioner.

The writ petition was thus filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) The writ petition may kindly be admitted and allowed;

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction commanding the Respondent No. 1to 6 to stay and seize the release of movie named 'Marivillin Gopurangal', produced and distributed by the combined actions of Respondents No.7 and 8 under the banner of 'Kokers Media Entertainments' which is scheduled to be released on 16/02/2024.

(iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Order or Direction commanding the Respondent No.4 to 6 to ensure prohibition or release, public display including Theatre Release of movie name 'Marivillin Gopurangal' produced and distributed by the combined actions of Respondents No.7 and 8 under the banner of 'Kokers Media Entertainments', which is scheduled to be released on 16/02/2024. And to take appropriate measure to control the law and order across the State of Kerala.”

(iv) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction commanding the Respondent No.12, 13 and 14 to restrain from acquiring the OTT, Satellite rights of movie name 'Marivillin Gopurangal', produced anddistributed by the combined actions of Respondents No.7 and 8 under the banner of 'Kokers Media Entertainments', which is scheduled to be released on 16/02/2024.”

On a consideration of the matter, a learned Single Judge held as follows:-

“8. Even if this Court is to accept all such assertions to be true, one fails to understand how a writ petition of this nature can be filed, particularly with reliefs sought against the official respondents, that the cinematograph film in question be seized and that its release be stayed. The disputes between the parties – even assuming there are any – are purely in the contractual realm, or within the ambit of civil litigation; and the assertion of Sri.B.A.Aloor that, when his client has been denied his right as a “distributor”, even after respondents 7 and 8 had taken money from him for such purpose, it requires to be construed to be violation of his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution - is to push the limits of locus to such level, which cannot be accepted by this Court whatsoever.

The attempt of the petitioner is clearly to bring alleged contractual disputes between the parties to this Court, invoking the discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by asserting that the alleged fraud perpetrated on his client by respondents 7 and 8, in having denied to him the distributorship of a film - even when he admits that there is no written agreement for such purpose, but only “oral agreements”. This is untenable.

Obviously, the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere and not before this Court.

This writ petition is thus closed.”

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and having perused the memorandum of writ appeal and the grounds raised therein, we are of the view that absolutely no ground has been made out to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, even if this Court were to accept all the assertions of the appellant/petitioner to be true, a writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is not a remedy available to the appellant/petitioner to redress his grievance. The claim of the petitioner (if at all) lies purely in the realm of private law and public law remedies cannot be availed for the same. The writ appeal will stand dismissed in limine.