The petitioner has approached before Honble High Court of Crystalden under Article 226 of

The Constitution of Shadowmoor, 1950 alleging violation of fundamental right to freedom of

speech and expression under Article 19(1) of The Constitution of Shadowmoor, 1950. The
Respondents, with utmost respect do not submit to the jurisdiction of this court.

The provisions are read herein under as:

ARTICLE 226 POWER OF HCS TO ISSUE CERTAIN WRITS

Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every HC shall have powers, throughout the territories
in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in
appropriate cases, any government, within those territories directions, orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and
certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III and
for any other purpose.

ARTICLE 19 PROTECTION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS REGARDING FREEDOM OF

SPEECH ETC.
(1) All citizens shall have the right
(a) to freedom of speech and expression ...or otherwise

The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 are available to citizens, i.e., living
natural persons having Shadowmoors citizenship. A non-citizen cannot challenge validity of
laws under Article 19.1 For the purpose of Article 19 (1), a company incorporated under
Companies Act of Shadowmoor, 2013 has been held to be a non-citizen. 2 Ginger Productions
Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act of Shadowmoor, 2013.
It was held though a company has no fundamental right under Article 19, a shareholder and
the managing director have the right under the Article19 (1) provided they have Indian
itizenship.3 But Mr. Jaden who owns Ginger Productions Pvt. Ltd. is an American Citizen.

1 Martiner Monstant Joan v. Union of India AIR NOC 2010 AP 87 .

2 Patel Mills v. Textile Labour Association; AIR 1963 S.C. 181

3 Ghodra Electricity Co. Ltd. V. State of Gujarat;(1975) SC 199; AIR 1975 SC 32

The question whether a corporation is a citizen was decided by the Supreme Court in State
Trading Corporation of India v. Commercial Tax Officer4. Since a company is not treated as a
citizen, it cannot claim protection of such fundamental rights as are expressly guaranteed to
citizens. In Tata Engineering Company v. State of Bihar,5 it was held that since the legal
personality of a company is altogether different from that of its members and shareholders, it
cannot claim protection of fundamental rights although all its members are Indian citizens.

Further, the petitioners were vested with the statutory right of approaching the revising
committee under Section 24 of the Shadowmoor Cinematograph Act, 1952 which provides
that:
24. Revising Committee:

(1) On receipt of the record referred to in Rule 22, the Chairman may, of his own motion
or on the request of the applicant, refer it to a Revising Committee constituted for the
purpose.

The petitioners have not approached the revising committee which makes their intention
questionable. A high court does not ordinarily issue a writ when an alternative efficacious
remedy is available. Under Article 226, the high court does not decide disputes for which
remedies under the general laws are available. Ordinary remedies are not sought to be
replaced by Article 226.

The principle has been stated by the Supreme Court of India as follows:

It is well settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant,
he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the
high court to issue a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of another remedy does not
affect the jurisdiction of the court to issue a writ; but the existence of an adequate legal
remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs.... 6 Article
226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures.7

4 tate Trading Corporation of India v. Commercial Tax Officer AIR 1963 SC 1811

5 Tata Engineering Company v. State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 40

6 Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882

Also, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cannot be entertained on the same grounds because
personal interest of Ginger Productions Pvt. Ltd. can be ascertained Prima Facie. The order
of Tribunal is not commercially viable to the production house and would lead to huge loss
of investment. The sole personal motive of huge loss of investment has encouraged the
petitioners to approach this Honble Court which is against the settled fundamental principle
for maintainability of Public Interest Litigation. PIL is not maintainable for personal gain,
private profit, and political motive or for any oblique consideration, which is a settled
proposition of law.8

Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and
circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful
veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not
lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social
justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be
allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of
genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal
vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member
of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private
motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its
process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms that monitor at times
from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with
judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a
good deal as well to enrich them. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or
cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at
the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.9

Hence, given the above mentioned grounds and settled law principles petitioners stand for
Public Cause would be highly unjustified.

7 Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. v. Tadi Adhinarayana Reddy, AIR 1997 SC 2189

8 Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. The State Of Tamil Nadu 2011WritLR881

9 Neetu v State of Punjab and Ors. AIR2007SC758

Therefore, with utmost respect respondents do not submit to the jurisdiction of this Honble
Court.