Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 283 (JK)

Medians v. Union of India

2016-05-20

B.S.WALIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. Although notice of motion was issued in the year 2006 and opportunities for filing objections were granted but objections have not been filed till date. However, the matter being very old and there being no representation on behalf of respondents, on request of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is deemed appropriate to consider the submissions on the basis of material available on record. 2. Petitioner has sought the issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing condition at Item No. 1 in Programme Category 'E' in so far as it relates to production and telecast of at least one programme of five episodes as also for quashing of advertisement published in 'Daily Excelsior' on 07.07.2005 together with condition No. 11 of the said advertisement on the ground of the same being ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Secondly, for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing impugned order bearing File No. 32/307/05-IC, dated 21.10.2005 issued by respondent No. 5, thirdly, for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of Producers for production of television programmes for DD Kashmir Channel of Doordarshan pursuant to Advertisement Notice dated 07.07.2005. 3. Perusal of order (Annexure-G), dated 21.10.2005 reveals that the petitioner's application for impanelment for DD Kashmir Channel was rejected after examination by the Committee specially constituted for this purpose, which had found that the petitioner-company/firm was not fit for impanelment under Category 'E' for the reasons mentioned at S. Nos. 1 to 9 in Annexure-G. The aforesaid reasons for rejection of the application of the petitioner are reproduced hereunder: "1. You have not fulfilled the experience criteria. 2. The experience mentioned by you is not supported by documentary proof. 3. Sufficient documentary proof has not been given to substantiate your claim for experience. 4. You have not fulfilled the prescribed criteria for net worth. 5. The net worth claimed by you is not supported by documentary proof. 6. The documents submitted by you in support of the claimed net worth are not sufficient to establish your claim. 7. Composition of the Creative Team has not been submitted. 8. Proof of residence has not been submitted. 9. Show reel has not been submitted". 4. 5. The net worth claimed by you is not supported by documentary proof. 6. The documents submitted by you in support of the claimed net worth are not sufficient to establish your claim. 7. Composition of the Creative Team has not been submitted. 8. Proof of residence has not been submitted. 9. Show reel has not been submitted". 4. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to condition incorporated in advertisement (Annexure-P) for which applications were invited upto 22.07.2005. Pursuant to applications submitted in response to aforementioned advertisement, work for production of television programme for DD Kashmir Channel of Doordarshan is stated to have been awarded to other persons. Eleven years have elapsed. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the condition stated to have not been fulfilled by the petitioner, is at page No. 28 of the paper book. The same is reproduced hereunder:. "Programme Category E: Programmes of less than 13 episodes (i) should have produced and telecast at-least three programmes of 5 episodes. However, Producers from J&K having produced and telecast at-least 1 programme of 5 episodes would be eligible/Company firm of a person having mass communication qualification in film/TV discipline from a recognised institution would also be eligible". 5. Condition at S. No. 5 in the advertisement at page No. 28 of the paper book requiring applications to be submitted in the format prescribed along with information/documents/materials to be furnished in the application, is reproduced hereunder: (i) "Details of programmes produced, the channels in which the programmes were telecast, the dates and time of telecast and the TRP ratings (female 15 + ABC) of the programme. (ii) In support of the net worth, the latest audited balance sheet should be submitted (iii) ............. (iv) .............. (v) A show reel of the programme produced by the applicant on the basis of which impanelment has been sought should accompany the application. (vi) ............... (vii) ............... (viii) ............." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the application submitted by the petitioner i.e. (Annexure-C) at page No. 32 of the paper book. A perusal thereof reveals that against the column of Experience of Programme Production, reference has been made to enclosure Nos. 3, 3-a, 3-b, 3-c & 3-d while against S. Nos. (vii) ............... (viii) ............." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the application submitted by the petitioner i.e. (Annexure-C) at page No. 32 of the paper book. A perusal thereof reveals that against the column of Experience of Programme Production, reference has been made to enclosure Nos. 3, 3-a, 3-b, 3-c & 3-d while against S. Nos. 6, 7, 8 & 9 & 3 in the column opposite to the aforesaid column, no details have been provided regarding channel on which telecast, total number of episodes telecast dates of telecast, TRP chart and title of the film. The same are blank. In other words, the application is incomplete. Therefore, rejection of application of the petitioner on the ground of not fulfilling the experience criteria cannot be faulted. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is material to show that he fulfils the requisite experience in respect thereto. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to enclosure-3 at page 63. Although, the same mentions programme Peace Returning to Paradise besides TV documentary serial film but the fact remains that as per condition-9 in rejection order, Annexure-G, show reels were not submitted along with the application form. This was a specific requirement/condition of eligibility and finds mention at S. No. 5 (v) in the Advertisement Notice at page No. 29 of the paper book. Thirdly, the ground for rejection was of the petitioner not having fulfilled the prescribed criteria with respect to net worth as the petitioner had not attached documentary proof in support of claim of net worth. Condition-5 (ii) at page 28 of the paper book i.e. Advertisement Notice reveals that the latest audited balance sheet was to be submitted in support of the net worth. However, the same was not submitted. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Serial No. 4 of reply dated 07.11.2005 at page No. 77 of the paper book. A perusal thereof, reveals reference to balance sheet submitted to the Director Doordarshan Kendra New Delhi under the orders of Controller of Programmes Directorate General Doordarshan No. 25/329/2000-KC, dated 02.04.2002 and of the petitioner not having done any business ever since thereafter. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner did not attach the latest audited balance sheet in support of Net Worth i.e. for the year 2005. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner did not attach the latest audited balance sheet in support of Net Worth i.e. for the year 2005. The petitioner as per his own showing at page No. 77 of the paper book i.e. representation/notice for revocation of Annexure-G i.e. letter dated 21.10.2005 had submitted details of net worth pertaining to the year 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to undated income-expenditure statement of Doordarshan commissioned documentary films attached at page No. 69 of the paper book. The same is as vague as it could be and is undated. Besides it is only income and expenditure statement. 10. In the aforementioned background, rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground of non-submission of documentary proof in respect of Net Worth claimed by him cannot be faulted. Apart from the above, applications had been invited for producing television programmes in the year 2005. Clause-10 at page No. 30 of the paper book reveals that the panel was to be updated and revised every six months to give a chance to upgrade categories or for new applicants to get empanelled. Thus, it was always open to the petitioner to submit proof of fulfilment of requisite conditions for impanelment as and when the panel was to be updated/revised in order to enable him to get him empanelled and produce TV programmes for DD Kashmir of Doordarshan. 11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 12. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned respondent to ensure proper representation in such cases in future.