ORDER : P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J. 1. The Petitioner, who is a practising Advocate, has on 26.12.2018 filed this Public Interest Litigation seeking to issue a direction to the Respondents to delete the scenes degrading Advocates in the Tamil film 'Adanga Maru', in respect of which he claims to have sent a representation dated 25.12.2018. 2. Heard Mr. V.B. Sundhareshwar, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. K. Prabhu, Learned Counsel appearing for the Second Respondent, Mr. Niranjan S. Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the Fourth Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 3. Regulatory measures are reflected from the language employed under Section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and the guidelines issued by the Central Government include that it shall be ensured that visuals or words involving defamation of the individual or body of individuals are not presented. It is not in dispute that the certificate for public exhibition of the aforesaid film has been obtained from the Board for Film Certification as per the provisions of the Act. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Viacom 18 Media Private Limited -vs- Union of India (Order dated 18.01.2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 36 of 2018) that once such certificate has been issued, there is prima facie a presumption that the concerned authority has taken into account all the guidelines. 4. This would mean that if there is any objection from any quarter that such certificate for public exhibition of the film has been issued is in contravention of the statutory guidelines as aforesaid, the matter would have to be moved before the Board for Film Certification invoking Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, for deleting the objectionable scenes. In other words, in the absence of any challenge in the manner recognized by law to the certificate for public exhibition of film issued by the Board for Film Certification under the provisions of the Act, it would not be permissible to by-pass that efficacious statutory remedy, which is available and entertain a Writ Petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation for deleting the scenes objected by any person or group of persons. 5. 5. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed without expressing any view on the merits of the contentions raised by the Petitioner. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.