MEHBOOB PICTURES Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
1. ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, CJ.‑‑ The present application has been fled by M/s. Mehboob Pictures in the following circumstances.
2. The petitioners imported 7 films in Pakistan at a time earlier than 1948. There is no denial of this fact and the parawise comments state that these averments were not admitted for want of information. It is further admitted in paragraph 3 of the comments that the petitioner had imported these films with the permission of the Government after clearance of custom against payment of prescribed custom duty. This paragraph further admits that these 7 films were duly received and censored by Karachi Films Censor Board, Punjab Films Censor Board, and West Pakistan Films Censor Board, and were approved for unrestricted exhibition throughout Pakistan. This position, is therefore, clear that the petitioner has lawfully imported all the 7 films, and such import was ‑made before 1948, and the films were certified for exhibition.
3. It seems that in the out‑break of 1965 War between India and Pakistan, these 7 films in question were de‑certified by a notification issued by the Federal Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Although no specific reference is made to these films in the said notification still the notification operated to de certify the films because it contemplated a general order that all such films which were produced in India and had been certified, shall be deemed to be uncertified films in respect of the whole of Pakistan. As a consequence the films stood de certified.
4. The petitioner had a grievance, and he had earlier filed a Constitutional Petition No. 1158/1980 before this Court. The learned standing counsel for the Federal Government placed before us a telegram received from the Board of Films Censors which reads as follows:‑‑
5. "Reference Petition No. 1158 of 1980 M/s. Mehboob Pictures v. Government of Pakistan regarding certificate of film entitled Anmol Ghari (.) Application submitted by M/s. Mehboob Pictures is incomplete for want of import documents and an affidavit (.) Application has been returned to the applicant with the request to produce the relevant documents."
6. However, on the 7th day of March, 1981 a consent order was passed on the statement of counsel of both the sides which incorporated an undertaking by the Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Culture to the effect that the Statutory Authorities shall consider the application of the petitioner for certificate in regard to 7 films. An undertaking was given that the Government would process the application in accordance with the law.
7. In the present petition besides other grievances, a grievance has been made by Mr. Abrar Hussain to the effect that the Government had taken no action in terms of the undertaking. In these circumstances he has claimed various reliefs which we are inclined to think, cannot be extended, in view of the fact that earlier petition on almost the same cause of action had been withdrawn. We are of the view that we should confine ourselves only with compliance of the statement made by respondent No. 1 in C.P. No. 1158/1980. Such compliance would as of necessity and technicality call for relief in the nature of mandamus. Such relief has, however, not been claimed in the prayer clause but our attention has been invited to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Moulana Abul Ala Moudoodi v. Government of Pakistan, reported in P L D 1964 Supreme Court p. 673. In that case also relief by way of mandamus had not been claimed but the Hon'able Judges found no difficulty in granting such relief despite a defect in the form of the prayer in the petition. The prayer in that petition was found to be sufficiently wide and the Court thought that it should not be powerless to grant the relief for the facts required that relief should be granted to the same extent as if it has been asked for. We are therefore of the view that we would be acting within our powers and with ample justification in extending relief which in the circumstances of this case the petitioner appears to be entitled to.
8. Admittedly the Board of Films Censors, had taken no action on the application for certification that had been filed by the petitioner and this is in spite of their under‑taking in C.P. No. 1158/1980. On a perusal of the comments it appears that they have not taken action mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the papers regarding lawful import had not been produced by the petitioner and secondly, that the application submitted did not contain full particulars.
9. In regard to the legality of import, we can overlook that paragraph 3 of the petition is admitted by the respondent. It would thus seem that the films had been imported before 1948, and actually were certified for exhibition. Such certificate continued to remain in force for 17 long years. None raised any objection in regard to the legality of the import and none raised a ringer against the petitioner that they had smuggled these films into Pakistan. Not only that, but a letter written by the advocate for the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 on 23‑9‑1982 (Annexure `F' to the petition) clearly stated in clause (g) that the petitioner has already submitted alongwith their application the necessary import E documents. This letter was preceded by a letter from the Board of Film Censors on 19‑8‑1982 wherein the said board did not raise any objection on the ground of illegality of import but had found itself unable to entertain the application for certification only on the ground that the application itself was not complete. It would appear that the question of legality of import is being taken up for the first time in 1983 when the comments have been submitted, when actually and admittedly films were imported more than 35 years back. To such extent we direct that the Board of Films Censors should not require the petitioner to submit. any paper in regard to legality of import at this stage.
10. The next objection of the Board of Films Censors is, that the application made by them is not complete. Mr. Abrar Hussain states that the petitioner shall comply with that objection by filling up all such blank spaces as may have been left blank in the application. He, however, requests that affidavit in form 'B' as is required by the Rule 10 of the Censorship of Films Rules may be dispensed with. We have examined terms of the said form `B'. It would appear that the Rules provided affidavit in form `B' so that legality of import is established, and it is further established that the film is not in Pakistani or Indian language. As far as first requirement of Form `B' viz. legality of import is concerned, we have already dealt with that aspect of the case in a foregoing part of this judgment. As far as the film being in Pakistani or Indian Language is concerned, we cannot overlook that these films are not imported recently. In fact these were imported more than 35 years back and those were actually certified. What is more, there is nothing to indicate that after the certification these films were transferred outside Pakistan or have been re‑imported in this country. To such extent, it would appear that insistence on an affidavit that the films were not in Pakistani or Indian Language, is not a material fact in the circumstances of this case. After all the petitioner had _ acquired vested right and such right cannot be destroyed now and that too after a consent statement was made in Court.
11. We hereby grant relief in favour of the petitioner to the extent that on the petitioner's filling up all such blank spaces in the application and filing of the other documents except affidavit in Form `B' relating to import of the films, the respondent No. 2 shall take all steps to consider the question of certification of I these films at the earliest.
12. With the aforesaid relief, this petition has been disposed of, but the parties shall bear their own costs.
13. M.Y.H./3030/K Order accordingly.