NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 16-1-1976 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 125 of 1975.
2. The facts briefly stated are that the respondent Shahid Afzal produced a Punjabi Film by the name of `Khatarnak' for the release of which necessary Censorship Certificate was issued by the Censor Board at Lahore on 2Q-8-1974 The respondent released the picture for exhibition in Lahore, Lyallpur and other places in the Punjab. It appears that on receipt of complaints that the picture contained vulgar, obscene and undesirable scenes, Mian Hamid Yasin M. N. A, who was a Member of the Censor Board which in the first place had certified the film with some excisions as fit for exhibition, again saw the film on 27th August 1974, in the company of Mr. Abdul Rashid, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lahore in Naela Cinema, Lahore. On seeing the film, he was convinced that the film was not being exhibited in the form in which it was certified. Accordingly, the entire length of the film was seized by them from the cinema. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, by his order dated 28-8-1974, suspended the Cencorship Certificate of the film under section 5(2) of Cencorship of Films Act 1963. 'this order was challeng--ed in the Lahore High Court by a writ petition (W. P. No. 1002/74), the details thereof are not very material for the disposal of the present appeal except for noting that the film was ordered to be returned to the respondent by an interim order passed on 3-9-1974. However, in the meanwhile, the film, as seized, was then again seen on 29-8-1974 by the Members of the Censor Board, Lahore. They opined that some of the scenes deleted by the Censor Board while issuing the certificate were included in the film as exhibit--ed in public and that as many as five sexy and lewd scenes, which were not at all included in the film as shown to the Members of the Censor Board at the time of issue of the certificate, had also been included and were being shown to the public. The Members of the Censor Board took a very serious view of this unauthorised display because the offending scenes, according to them, amounted to the worst form of vulgarity and obscenity. They, there--fore, strongly recommended to the Central Government that the Censorship Certificate be cancelled under Rule 21 of the Censorship of Films Rules, 1963 and the display of film in question be banned throughout Pakistan.
3. The Federal Government, in persuance of the above recommenda--tion of the Member of the Censor Board, Lahore, issued a notice as to the respondent on 5th September, 1974, to show cause why the Censorship Certi--ficate be not cancelled. In pursuance thereof, the Federal Government did cancel the Censorship Certificate on the 12th of September 1974 but afterwards on 30-9-1974, this order was withdrawn to remove some technical defect. On 23-10-1974, a fresh show-cause notice was issued under rule 21(3) of the Censorship of Films Rules, 1963 with a view to provide the respondent an opportunity to represent his case to the Central Government as to why the Censorship Certificate should not be cancelled. In this notice complete details were given of the portions which had been deleted by the Central Board of Film Censors, Lahore but were again included in the film as well as of the portions which were not at all presented to the Censor Board, Lahore for Censorship but had been included in the film later on. On 31-10-1974, the respondent filed his detailed reply controverting all the allegations. However, on the 5th of July 1975, the Federal Government, after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the respondent, in exercise of the powers vested in it under section 5(5)'I of the Censorship of Films Act, 1963 read with rule 21 of the Censorship Films Rules, 1963 notified that the Film entitled 'Khatarnak' shall be deemed to be an uncertified film for the whole of Pakistan.
4. The respondent challenged the validity of this order by filing a writ petition (W. P. No. 1223/75) before the Lahore High Court at Lahore. This was, however, dismissed on 2:3-7-1975 by a learned Single Judge. He then filed a Letters Patent Appeal (L. P. A. 125/75) against the said judgment. The learned Judges of the Division Bench, however, by a very detailed and elaborate judgment, passed on 16-1-1976, accepted the appeal and quashed the impugned order of the Federal Government decertifying the film for the whole of Pakistan dated 8-7-197 5. In the opinion of the Division Bench, the respondent was not afforded due "opportunity of representing his case" within the meaning and scope of rule 21(3) of the Rules and that the Central Govern--ment did not apply its own mind to the case and had acted mechanically in accepting the allegations against the respondent in decertifying the film in dispute. The Central Government, inter alia, therefore, filed a petition for special leave to appeal and leave was granted by this Court to consider the true interpretation, scope and intent of rule 21 (3) of the Censorship of Films Rules, 1963.
5. Rule 21 to the extent relevant is in the following terms :- "(1) A certificate granted try the Board under these Rules shall be liable to cancellation if the film in respect of which the certificate is granted is exhibited in form other than the one in which it is certified'
(2) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------.
(3) No order under this role shall be made to the prejudice of any person unless he has had an opportunity of representing his case to the Federal Government."
6. The question for determination is whether the respondent can, on the facts noted above be held to have "had an opportunity of representing his case to the Federal Government".
7. This matter has been considered by the learned Judges in the High Court of the Division Bench and the question formulated as follows :-- "what falls for determination is the scope of the phrase `an opportunity of representing his case."
While discussing this question, it was observed :- "The dimensions of this opportunity cannot be laid down with exactitude. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether an opportunity provided to a petitioner was adequate or not in the given circumstances. It may, however, be broadly stated that in a case involving a pure question of law, an opportunity to make a written representation would be sufficient. In another case an oral tearing or a hearing coupled with a written representation may answer the statutory requirement. Ii yet other cases where proof of allegations call for a factual inquiry or where the allegations are based on oral testimony of certain persons, the person to be affected must only be allowed to know beforehand the material that is to be used not against him but he should be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and produce evidence in rebuttal if necessary."
8. A large number of judgments delivered by the Courts of this country as also those from the U. K.
And some texts from the Qur'an and Sunnah were cited wherein the necessity of prior hearing before taking action was pointed out. However, no clear findings were given whether in the circumstances of this case prior hearing was necessary or not, that appears to have been held is that the Federal Government had not applied its own mind to the case and, prima facie, acted mechanically in accepting the allegations as contained in the report. The reason for so holding is discernible from the following passage of the judgment :- "In para. (5) of his reply, the appellant unequivocally asserted that portions of the films, as mentioned at serials i(d), ii(n) and ii(d) of the show-cause notice, had been duly shown to the Censor Board before certification and that they had approved these. In his view, therefore, those portions could not be termed as unauthorised material. In such a situation it was incumbent on the Central Government either to have accepted as correct the stand taken by the appellant and resorted to rule 22 or it should have insisted on strict proof of the allegations. It appears that the Central Government was not even conscious of the objection and it was never attended to. In the circumstances the appellant was right in saying that the representation made by him was never considered and that he had been denied the protection as provided in rule 21(3)."
9. Another reason for holding the order of the Federal Government as invalid was that no reasons for the decision were given and it was held "that a tribunal, empowered to pass orders, which may mean depriving a person of his liberty, property, status or livelihood or impose a penalty or cause a slur on his reputation, must give its reasons for the order".
10. We think that the learned Judges of the Division Bench in the High Court misconceived the true nature of the matter. The case in hand was a simple case in which two versions were being pleaded. According to the Member of the Censor Board, the portion of the film which had been excised by it along with some portions which had never been exhibited for censorship before the Censor Board were included in the film displayed to the public. This allegation was denied by the respondent. The learned Single Judge in the High Court held that the Central Government was justified in accepting the version put forth by the Members of the Censor Board observing :- "It is not denied that the show-cause notice was received by the petitioner which was replied by him. It is also not denied that the film in question was seen by the members of the Censor Board, themselves, after the judgments as referred to above were passed. Since exception has been taken to the exhibition of the film being very much obscene and vulgar, the Federal Government after considering the matter on the basis of the show-cause notice, reply thereto and the recommendations made by the members of the Film Censor Board and other relevant material available on the file has decided to decertify the film. This Court is not in a position to substitute its own findings for that of the Federal Government passed on the basis of the material, as mentioned above."
11. The learned Judges of the Division Bench thought that the said version had not been proved because "the excised portions were also available with the Censor Board at the relevant time as provided by Rule 14(8) and 14(10). The certificate also carried at its back the description of the excised portions The Central Government thus had no difficulty to compare the seized film with the excised portion, in its possession, to prove the allega--tions." The fact was overlooked that the seized film had been returned by order of the High Court dated 13-9-1974.
12. Be that as it may the film had been seen by the Members of the Censor Board on 20th August 1974 and after receipt of the complaints wash again witnessed by them on 29th August, 1974 i.e. Only 9 days later. The question was a simple one, namely, whether the film was being exhibited in the same form in which it was certified. The members of the Board unanimously held that it was not. This finding was naturally challenged by the respondents. However, the Federal Government, after considering the reply of the respondents, found no reason for not accepting the version of the Lahore Censor Board. There is no ground in these circumstances as the learned Single Judge has pointed out for the Court to substitute its own opinion for that of the Federal Government.
13. On this view of the matter, the other ground which prevailed with the learned Judges of the Division Bench, namely that reasons were no recorded for decertifying the film also loses its importance. This being a simple case of two versions, the competent authorities having accepted on of them in preference to the other there was no necessity for recording an elaborate order. The impugned order of the Federal Government could no be set aside on this ground in the circumstances of the present case. As for the true import of the phrase "opportunity of representing his case before the Federal Government" we agree with the learned Judges of the Division Bench reproduced in para. 7 above that this will vary from case to case. In the instant case, the opportunity given satisfied the requirements of the relevant rule.
The upshot is that this appeal must succeed. It is allowed but with no order as to costs.