Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1013 (JK)

Sachin Dhar v. UOI

2017-11-16

ALOK ARADHE

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. In this petition, the petitioners inter alia seeks quashment of impugned communications dated 08.06.2011 and 09.06.2011 by which the petitioners have been apprised that their proposals were considered by the Re-consideration Committee in pursuance of directions issued by this Court in OWP No.1172/2009 and have been rejected. The petitioners also seek a direction to the writ of mandamus not to initiate any process for inviting proposals from the empanelled producers in the commissioned category of the programmes to be telecast at Doordarshan Kashir Channel, J&K, and to issue a writ of mandamus to consider the proposals in conformity with the judgment as per the guidelines. In order to appreciate the petitioners’ grievance, few facts need mention which are stated infra. 3. The Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India (for short ‘PBBCI’) is a body corporate which has been created under an Act namely Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India Act, and is the instrumentality of the State. The PBBCI issued guidelines for consideration, processing and approval of Commissioned Programmes for telecast on J&K/ Kashmir Channel of Doordarshan. The aforesaid guidelines are admittedly statutory in nature. Clause 1 of the aforesaid guidelines deals with method of commissioning. Admittedly, the petitioners are empanelled by the Doordarshan under the Clause 1. Clause E of the aforesaid guidelines deals with evaluation of the proposals. Clause M provides for an appeal. 4. The petitioners have approached this Court by filing OWP No.270/2010 in which the petitioners had questioned the order passed by the official respondents in favour of the private respondents whereby they were empanelled and approval was accorded to them as producers for commissioning of programmes in violation of the guidelines and rules of eligibility. The case of the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation that the official respondents have not conveyed the rejection orders to the petitioners rendering them unable to file the appeal within prescribed time limit. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the writ petition preferred by the petitioners was disposed of with the direction to the appellate authority to consider the appeal and decide the same within 15 days w.e.f. 01.12.2010 and to report compliance. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the writ petition preferred by the petitioners was disposed of with the direction to the appellate authority to consider the appeal and decide the same within 15 days w.e.f. 01.12.2010 and to report compliance. In compliance of the orders passed by this court in the aforesaid writ petition, the cases of the petitioners were considered and vide communication dated 7/8/9 June 2011, the petitioners have been informed that their proposals have not been found suitable. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned communications suffer from the vice of non application of mind inasmuch as the impugned orders are non speaking orders. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been empanelled in accordance with the guidelines which are statutory in nature and their proposals cannot be rejected on the ground that they lack experience. It is further submitted that the petitioners had raised an objection with regard to mala fides and nepotism. However, no averment in rebuttal has been made and the proposals of the petitioners have been rejected in an arbitrary and irrational manner. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to order dated 07.12.2009 passed in OWP No.650/2009 (Iqra Films v. Union of India and Ors). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the Re-consideration Committee was different from the Evaluation Committee. It is further submitted that the Re-consideration Committee comprised of 8 members i.e. 3 officials as well as 3 experts and one member each from Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Home Affairs. It is further submitted that the reasons exist in the record and conscious decision has been taken to reject the proposals by assigning the reasons. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the record. It is further submitted that there is no scope for fresh consideration of the proposals of the petitioners which have been considered by the Re-consideration Committee. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 , the Supreme Court has held that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi judicial authorities. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 , the Supreme Court has held that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi judicial authorities. While emphasizing the need for assigning reasons, it was held that giving of reasons minimizes the chances of arbitrariness and hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law. In Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others, (2010) 3 SCC 732 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. It has further been held that recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851 has held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. In the instant case, it is pertinent to mention here that in the communications, no reasons worth the name have been assigned. However, the respondents have produced the Agenda Sheets for Reconsideration of the proposals of the programmes for commissioning in DD Kashir Channel dated 10.01.2011. Admittedly, the orders impugned in this petition have been passed in exercise of statutory powers. From the perusal of the Agenda Sheets, it is evident that it only contains the grading and decision of the Committed in the last column and in other words, even the aforesaid agenda sheets only contains the conclusions and not the reasons. 8. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the petitioners are duly empanelled with the respondents. A bench of this Court after perusal of the Agenda Sheets which were produced by an order dated 23.05.2014 had also recorded a finding that prima facie the impugned orders have not been passed in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2010 passed in OWP No.270/2010. A bench of this Court after perusal of the Agenda Sheets which were produced by an order dated 23.05.2014 had also recorded a finding that prima facie the impugned orders have not been passed in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2010 passed in OWP No.270/2010. Thus, the Reconsideration Committee has rejected the proposals of the petitioners without assigning any reasons and merely on the basis of the conclusions recorded by it which is not permissible in law as if such an order is allowed to stand, the same shall suffer from the vice of non application of mind. The impugned orders/communications are cryptic, arbitrary and suffer from the vice of non application of mind inasmuch as they do not contain any reasons. The impugned orders/communications cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The impugned orders are accordingly, quashed. 9. Needless to state that the respondents shall constitute the Reconsideration Committee afresh and shall consider the proposals of the petitioners strictly in accordance with the guidelines by assigning cogent reasons. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of three months from today. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of, along with connected MPs. OWP No.1236/2011, MP Nso.1715/2011, MP No.480/2012: For the reasons assigned by this Court in OWP No.1062/2011, the impugned orders contained in Annexure-A dated 08.06.2011 are hereby quashed and the writ petition is disposed of on same terms and with similar directions. Writ Petitions disposed of with directions.