JARINA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner, in this writ application is against the purported inaction of the concerned authorities of the State Government to take action against the private Respondent No. 6 for his alleged acts of infringement of the petitioner's rights.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Respondent No. 6 on the other hand would vehemently argue that the present writ application is totally not maintainable, in view of the fact that the remedy for the petitioner lies before the Tribunal constituted under the Act. Learned counsel would want to explain that the powers as vested in the authorized officers, namely, the District Magistrate, Sub - Divisional Officer and the Police Commissioner, is confined only to ensure that the only approved materials are telecast by the Cable Operators and for such purposes, they are empowered to seize the materials, apparatus, and equipments, if it is found that objectionable matters, which have been specifically banned, are being telecast by the cable operator/licensee.