K R RAVI RATHINAM Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KAMARAJAR SALAI; INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE; COMMISSIONER OF POLICE; SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING; SECRETARY, INFORMATION AND CINEMA; CHIEF PRODUCER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA FILMS DIVISION; ROCKLINE; B PONKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.W.Peter Ramesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondents 4 and 6, Mr.Sanjay Ramasamy, learned Counsel for the respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11. Notice in respect of the 9th respondent was served through online and the proof in this regard has also been filed stating that "Delivery Attempted : Missent".

(2.) The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court.

(3.) This Writ Appeal has been directed against an order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.(MD) No.18210 of 2014 dated 03.12.2014, wherein, the learned Single Judge on careful consideration of the respective contentions and in view of the divergent stand taken by the respective parties and taking note of the over all assessment of conspectus of the entire attendant facts and circumstances of the present case in an encircling fashion comes to an inevitable conclusion that the grievance of the appellant that his intellectual property/story 'Mullai Vanam 999' was stolen by the Respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 from 'You Tube' is a private dispute especially when the Respondents 7 to 11 have stoutly denied the same and therefore the merits of the rival claims made by the parties in the subject matter in issue before this Court could not be investigated in a summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.