Judgment : The Court:-The petitioners in this WP under art.226 dated December 21, 2011 are questioning a letter dated November 8, 2011 written by a Joint Secretary of the Home (Press) Department of the Government of West Bengal to an unspecified District Magistrate, an unspecified Superintendent of Police, and the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata. The letter was regarding “Observance of Copy Right Act, 1957 – Issue of stay order.” The contents of the letter are quoted below: “The undersigned is directed to refer to this office Circular No.32 (39)PS/1A/98 dated 13.7.2011 on the above noted subject and to state that since the matter is sub-judice, the aforesaid circular is being stayed.” The thing referred to in the letter as the office circular dated July 13, 2011 is at p.108, and it is a similar letter written by a Joint Secretary of the same Department of the Government regarding “observance of the copy right Act, 1957.” The relevant contents of the letter dated July 13, 2011 are quoted below: “The undersigned is directed to send herewith a copy of the letter No.(indecipherable) PRS:KOL:CR: 2011:015 received from the Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. addressed to the Chief Secy. Govt. of West Bengal on the above noted subject which is self explanatory for his/her kind perusal and taking necessary follow up action. The representatives of the Society will contact him/her with all relevant documents/orders etc. if required for implementation of the Indian Copy Right Act, 1957 in the true spirit.” Case of the petitioners, as submitted by Mr. Sen appearing for them, is this. The Central Government registered IPRS, the first petitioner, as a copyright society under subs.( 3) of s.33 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Accordingly, it is entitled to carry on the business of issuing or granting a license in respect of the works in which copyright of its members subsists. Bars, hotels, restaurants, etc. playing songs, musical works, etc. of its members cannot play them without obtaining licenses from it by paying royalty. Concerning its right a Deputy Commissioner of Police Headquarters, Kolkata issued a circular dated November 10, 2006. Mr. Sen has contended as follows. After recognizing right of IPRS to grant licenses and obligation of bars, hotels, restaurants, etc. to obtain licenses form it for playing songs, musical works, etc. Concerning its right a Deputy Commissioner of Police Headquarters, Kolkata issued a circular dated November 10, 2006. Mr. Sen has contended as follows. After recognizing right of IPRS to grant licenses and obligation of bars, hotels, restaurants, etc. to obtain licenses form it for playing songs, musical works, etc. of its members, without disclosing any reason and arbitrarily a Joint Secretary of the Home (Press) Department of the Government of West Bengal has issued the impugned order dated November 8, 2011 staying the operation of the Department’s previous circular dated July 13, 2011. As a result bars, hotels, restaurants, etc. playing songs, musical works, etc. of its members are no longer recognizing its right to grant licenses and collect royalty. Hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Neither the circular dated November 10, 2006 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, nor was the letter dated July 13, 2011 written by the Joint Secretary in discharge of any statutory power, duty or obligation; nor did any law entitle the petitioners, claiming that registration granted to IPRS by the Central Government under sub-s.(3) of s.33 of the Copyright Act, 1957 entitled IPRS to carry on the business of issuing or granting licenses on payment of royalty by the bars, hotels, restaurants, etc. intending to play songs, musical works, etc. of its members, to call upon the Deputy Commissioner to issue the circular or the Joint Secretary to write the letter. No provision of any law required the Deputy Commissioner of Police to issue the letter and the Joint Secretary to write the letter. None of them was empowered or supposed to decide whether IPRS was entitled to do the things it claimed it was. IPRS claiming right to grant licenses was entitled to sue the owners of the bars, hotels, restaurants, etc. if they contravened its right to issue or grant licenses in terms of s.33 of the Copyright Act, 1957. If someone violated its right to issue or grant licenses that could entitle it to take steps for prosecution as well, and in such a case, perhaps, the police would have incurred certain statutory obligations to ensure an effective prosecution. But I am unable to see how the Deputy Commissioner could issue the circular with a view to enforcing IPRS’s legal right, if any, to grant licenses. But I am unable to see how the Deputy Commissioner could issue the circular with a view to enforcing IPRS’s legal right, if any, to grant licenses. The State Government and the police could not create an exclusive right for IPRS to grant licenses and collect royalty, for disputes concerning the right, if any, were to be decided only by the appropriate Civil and Criminal Courts, and only in execution of orders of such Courts, if directed, the State Government and the police could take steps and issue orders, circulars, etc. if necessary. In my opinion the Deputy Commissioner of Police issuing the circular and the Joint Secretary writing the letter both acted in excess of their power and authority. Hence by issuing the impugned order the Joint Secretary of the department concerned has not committed any wrong. He has rather rightly taken the corrective measures. The order dated July 19, 2011 issued for one particular occasion to a particular company does not lead to a different conclusion. In my opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief from the Writ Court. For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.