JUDGMENT:---We have heard Counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant petition is that the respondent No. 1 Board of Film Certification has issued the censor certificate in respect of film "Raja Ko Rani Se Pyar Ho Gaya". According to the petitioner in the said film a baby elephant named "Kannan" was made to perform several acts which according to the petitioners could be possible only after rigorous training and in the process of such training cruelty must have been inflicted on the animal. That according to the petitioners amounts to cruelty, and therefore, the respondent No. 1 Board was not justified in granting "U" certificate to the film for public exhibition. 2. In the Affidavit in Reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 it has been stated that the respondent No. 1 Central Board of Film Certification has granted the certificate after taking into account relevant guidelines. In particular, reference is made to the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting dated 6-12-1991 issuing guidelines which should be taken into account while examining the film by the committee. This notification had been issued in addition to the guidelines as provided in section 5(b) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The relevant guidelines contained in para 2(iii)(c) of the said notification read as under : "Showing cruelty to, or abuse of animals, are not presented needlessly." According to the said Affidavit in Reply, on receiving the application for issue of a certificate, due procedure was adopted keeping in view the necessary guidelines, and recommendation for grant of "U" certificate was made subject to some cuts. After verifying that the recommended cuts were given effect, the said "U" certificate was granted to the film. In the Affidavit in Reply it is also stated that the cuts recommended by the Committee were accepted by the respondent-Board. A declaration had been obtained from the applicant that no cruelty was caused to the animals used during the shooting of the film. 3. Having regard to the fact that respondent No. 1 has duly applied its mind to the grant of certificate for public exhibition, we do not find any good reason to interfere in this writ petition, when apparently and admittedly the film does not show any act of cruelty to the animal, and the scenes complained of do not themselves depict any cruelty. What is submitted is that the animal must have been subjected to rigorous training before the film was shot and that amounts to cruelty. Secondly it is submitted that the list of acts performed by the animal given in the amended petition would show that the actions of the animal depicted are not in conformity with the nature of the animal and therefore amounts to cruelty. According to the Counsel for the petitioners those scenes may give a wrong impression to the children who may view the film. We have perused the particulars of the various acts performed by the baby elephant as described in the draft amendment. We are satisfied that those acts are not such as would amount to cruelty. Counsel for the petitioner also referred to a decision of Kerala High Court dated 6-6-2000 in O.P. No. 155 of 1999 and connected matter, wherein the Court was required to consider the validity of the notification dated 2-3-1991 banning training and exhibition of five animals namely bear, monkey, tiger, lion and elephant. We have perused the judgment. We do not find any principle laid down therein that may help the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is rejected. Petition rejected. -----