Rajiv Sahai Endlaw ORDER
G. Rohini, C.J.
C.M. No. 6353/2015 (u/O 23 Rule 1(3) of CPC in WP(C) No. 2316/2013
CM. No. 6352/2015 (u/O 23 Rule 1(3) of CPC in WP(C) No. 2318/2013
CM. No. 6354/2015 (u/O 23 Rule 1(3) of CPC in WP(C) No. 2321/2013
CM. No. 6387/2015 (u/O 23 Rule 1(3) of CPC in WP(C) No. 2959/2013
1. All these applications are filed seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate steps before the appropriate forum to safeguard the rights of the petitioners.
2. The main writ petitions, i.e., W.Ps.(C) No. 2316/2013, 2318/2013, 2321/2013 and 2959/2013 are filed questioning the vires of the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, as amended by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, (Act No. 27 of 2012), namely, Section 11, Section 31(1) (b) and Section 31D as well as Rules 3(2), 7, 29, 30 and 31 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Copyright Rules").
3. It is pleaded in the applications for withdrawal that the petitioners came to know that W.P.(C) No. 92/2015 titled Eskay Video Private Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., has recently been filed before the High Court of Calcutta challenging the constitutionality of various provisions of Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended in 2012), including the aforementioned Section 11, Section 31(1) (b) and Section 31D and Rule 3(2), 7, 29, 30 and 31 of the newly introduced Copyright Rules, 2013 and that the arguments are going on in the said writ petition. It is further pleaded that grave prejudice would be caused to their rights and business if W.P.(C) No. 92/2015 is heard by the Calcutta High Court in the absence of the applicants/writ petitioners. Hence the present applications are filed under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of CPC seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to approach the Calcutta High Court to be made a party in the aforesaid proceedings.
4. Though no counter affidavit is filed by the sole respondent - Union of India, the interveners, viz., M/s. Entertainment Network India Ltd. and M/s. Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. filed detailed counter affidavits opposing the applications for withdrawal contending that the applications are filed as a strategy of forum shopping and that the conduct of the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. It is also contended that since the writ petitions before this Court are being contested by every possible stakeholder, if the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the writ petitions and approach some other Court, the same would result in forcing all the other concerned parties and stakeholders to approach the other Court and contest the matter. The further contention is that the applications are a result of the apprehension of the petitioners that the Copyright Board may be constituted shortly in terms of the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6255/2010 and in case the Copyright Board is constituted, the same would commence issuance of compulsory licenses. It is pointed out that the statut........