ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking complete ban on the movie “Mardani - 2” of Yashraj Production. The petitioner is also seeking direction to restrict the Director and Producer of the movie to regulate the public exhibition of movie “Mardani - 2”. 2. The allegations have been levelled in the petition that the Kota city has been called as “Rapist City” in the movie. The petitioner further alleges that the Kota city is renowned for its educational institutions and the students from all parts of the country and abroad come to Kota city for attending different coaching institutions to pursue their career in Medical Science, Engineering, etc. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had approached different authorities for putting a ban on the movie “Mardani - 2” and a legal notice dated 1st December, 2019 was also sent to the Central Board of Film Certification, also known as Censor Board (for short “the Board”) – respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the said notice was received by the Board on 6th December, 2019 but no steps were taken by the said Board to put a ban on the movie in spite of the fact relating to wrong presentation of Kota city as “Rapist City”. Learned counsel further submitted that by way of trailer being shown to the public, the entire Kota city has been defamed and as such, there is a great resentment in the mind of the local people of Kota and the entire State of Rajasthan. 5. This Court had asked learned counsel for the petitioner to serve a notice upon Mr.RD Rastogi, Additional Solicitor General and learned ASG Mr.RD Rastogi has put in appearance today. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Rule 32 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 (for short “the Rules of 1983”). The said Rule is quoted hereunder for ready reference : “32. Re-examination of certified films- (1) Where in respect of a film which has been certified for public exhibition, any complaint is received by the Board, the same shall be forwarded to the Central Government. The said Rule is quoted hereunder for ready reference : “32. Re-examination of certified films- (1) Where in respect of a film which has been certified for public exhibition, any complaint is received by the Board, the same shall be forwarded to the Central Government. (2) The Central Government may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct the Chairman to re-examine any film (in respect of which a complaint has been received by it directly or through the Board) in such manner and with such assistance as may be specified in the direction. (3) The Chairman may, for the purpose of re-examination aforesaid, require by written notice the person who made the application for certification of the film or the person to whom the rights of ownership or distribution in the film have passed, to arrange at his expense to deliver a print of the certified film to any specified regional officer within such time as may be specified in the notice for the purpose of re-examination. (4) The place, date and time of such reexamination shall be determined by the Chairman. (5) The Chairman shall forward his opinion together with the print of the film in relation to which a certificate was issued earlier to the Central Government who may after such enquiry as it deems fit, pass such orders thereon in exercise of the revisional powers under section 6. (6) The provisions of this rule shall apply only in cases where the revisional powers are exercisable by the Central Government under Section 6.” 7. Learned counsel, on the basis of the said Rule, submitted that when the complaint was filed by the petitioner before the Board, the same was required to be forwarded to the Central Government and the Central Government was to re-examine the movie with the assistance, which has been provided under the Rule 32 of the Rules of 1983. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the Board, in spite of receiving the complaint, has not acted by sending the same to the Central Government and as such, during pendency of the writ petition, the movie “Mardani – 2” has been released for public viewing and as such, this Court is required to interfere in the present matter. 9. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the Board, in spite of receiving the complaint, has not acted by sending the same to the Central Government and as such, during pendency of the writ petition, the movie “Mardani – 2” has been released for public viewing and as such, this Court is required to interfere in the present matter. 9. Learned Additional Solicitor General Mr.RD Rastogi submitted that the direction sought by the petitioner in the instant writ petition to ban the public exhibition of movie “Mardani – 2”, may not be passed straightway. 10. Learned counsel submitted that the Central Government is equipped to deal with any complaint, which is filed in respect of exhibition of a film and if necessary changes are required, the same can always be considered by a team of experts, which the Central Government may employ in the said exercise. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. This Court finds that a complaint has already been filed by the petitioner before the Board and as per Rule 32(1) of the Rules of 1983 and the said complaint was required to be forwarded to the Central Government by the Board and the Central Government under sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 of the Rules of 1983, could also suo moto entertain the said complaint, if it was received by them or the complaint received through the Board, could be entertained by them. 12. This Court holds that the grievance/complaint, filed by the petitioner, may be considered by the Central Government in expeditious manner and the Central Government is required to act promptly in this matter, as the movie “Mardani – 2” is already said to be released on 13th December, 2019. 13. It is expected from the authorities – Central Government that the complaint, filed by the petitioner, may be examined and an endeavour should be made to dispose of the said complaint within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. This Court also deems it proper to direct the respondent No.2 - Central Board of Film Certification to immediately send the complaint to the Central Government to take appropriate action on the complaint filed by the petitioner. 14. This Court also deems it proper to direct the respondent No.2 - Central Board of Film Certification to immediately send the complaint to the Central Government to take appropriate action on the complaint filed by the petitioner. This Court further grants liberty to the petitioner to address another complaint to the Central Government directly within two days by raising grievance in respect of the contents of the movie “Mardani – 2”, which is said to be having objectionable portrait of the Kota city by terming it as “Rapist City”. 15. This Court also holds that the Central Government will afford adequate opportunity to the persons concerned with production and release of the film and after affording proper opportunity to all the parties, appropriate decision will be taken by them. 16. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.