Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 500 (CAL)

Pankaj Panwar v. Lalit Kala Adademi

2019-04-17

ABHIJIT GANGOPADHYAY

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The factual matrix of this matter is little unusual. 2. The petitioner is an Artist and National Akademi award winner of the year 2004 by Lalit Kala Akademi (National Akademi of Art). The petitioner acquired post experience Diploma of Sculpture from Royal College of Art, London in the year 1986-1988. He was awarded National Sculpture Scholarship, in the year 1996. He was granted Junior Research Fellowship by the Government of India in 1997. He was also awarded Charles Wallace Grant and Henry Moore Fellowship in United Kingdom. He participated in several International Solo Exhibition in different States of Europe and in the United States his work of Art was selected to represent India in Italian Contemporary Art exhibition by the National Gallery of Modern Art, New Delhi. 3. Presently he is a Professor of the Department of Sculpture, Kala Bhavan, Viswabharati University, Santiniketan. 4. The petitioner found a public announcement made in various English Newspapers from where he came to learn that the Lalit Kala Akademi, a registered society wholly controlled by Government of India had set up a disciplinary committee by the said Akademi in compliance with the Government/ High Court order to inquire into complaint against General Council Members (of the Akademi) who violated code of conduct by promoting themselves/ relatives in Akademi activities giving personal leave over Akademi objection. The competent authority of Lalit Kala Akademi by issuing an order dated Jaunary 07, 2014 held that paragraph 17 (11) of the Constitution of the Akademi and on such ground passed some punishment orders in respect of some of the General Council Members named in the said paper publication. 5. The paper publication has been annexed as annexure P-5 of the writ application. 6. From the said paper publication it is found that in respect of one Sri Mukul Panwar the following punishment was awarded : "Censure for all times. Recovery of loss to the Akademi due to his unauthorized visit to various countries. Withdrawal of National Awad to his brother Pankaj Panwar including plaque and revocerry of Award money. Publication in National Print media for information to public at large". 7. Recovery of loss to the Akademi due to his unauthorized visit to various countries. Withdrawal of National Awad to his brother Pankaj Panwar including plaque and revocerry of Award money. Publication in National Print media for information to public at large". 7. The case of the petitioner is that he is in no way connected to said Mukul Panwar but the Akademi passed a punishment order against Mukul Panwar whereby beside punishment given to Mukul Panwar, National Award given to the petitioner was withdrawn including the plaque and recovery of award money. Such punishment was also decided by the Akademi to be published in National print Media for information to public at large. 8. The petitioner's case is that he is in no way related to Mukul Panwar. There was absolutely no reason for involving his name with said Mukul Panwar the Akadami is fully mistaken in holding that he is brother of said Mukul Panwar as he is not the brother of mukul Panwar. The petitioner also alleged that Akadami cannot have any documents or any other thing to hold that he is brother of Mukul Panwar and finally the petitioner has stated that before awarding such punishment involving him the Akademi never gave him any opportunity of hearing for taking such decision (as mentioned above) of punishment against him and therefore, such decision of Akademi is against the principles of natural justice and wholly bad in the eye of law, is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and quashed. 9. The respondent i.e. Lalit Kala Akademi and others took objection at the initial stage of hearing of the matter (in April 2014) raising preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. This court by passing a judgment and order in detail considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its different judgments relating to territorial jurisdiction rejected the preliminary objection raised by the respondent. 10. After several years in 2019 the matter came up before this Court for final hearing. 11. At the final hearing despite of service several notices upon the respondent No. 1 nobody appeared before me and only one officer of the respondent No. 1 working as consultation of the said respondent was present personally. He did not make any submission before this Court. 12. 11. At the final hearing despite of service several notices upon the respondent No. 1 nobody appeared before me and only one officer of the respondent No. 1 working as consultation of the said respondent was present personally. He did not make any submission before this Court. 12. In the course of the hearing the petitioner filed one supplementary affidavit including therein an order passed by Lalit Kala Akademi bearing No. LK/CC/COC/MIsc./2017-2018 dated 13.03.2018. the said order is reproduced hereinbelow: "WHEREAS the following 22 artists were blacklisted vide order dated 7.1.2014 by Lalit Kala Akademi. The names of the artists are as under: Sri Mukul Panwar, Shri Vidyasagar Upadhyay, Sri Rajivnayan Padey, Sri Amrut Patel, Sri O.P. Khare, Sri Jai K. Agarwal, Shri vivek Tembe, Shri M.K. Puri, Shri SumanGupta, Ms. Shaiqa Mohi, Shri Brahm Prakash, Shri Ravindra Salve, Shri Pendam Gouri Shankar, Shri Janak J. Narzary, Shri Tarak Gari, Shri Madhu v. Desai, Shri Dev V. Desai, Shri Dev Ratan Sharma, Shri Jayanti Rabadia, Shri Neel Pawan Baruah, Ms. Koeli Mukherjee Ghosh, Shri Samir Aich and Shri Bhanwar Singh Panwar. The said artists approached various courts against the aforesaid order thereafter a committee was constituted on 3.3.2016 which recommended for revocation of the black listing of artists. WHEREAS after the undersigned assuming the charge had constituted a committee on the stated matter, the said committee had submitted its report on 18.4.2017 again recommended the revocation of above said black listing of artists. The Said report was forwarded to Ministry of Culture pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble High Courts in various writ petitions. The Ministry of Culture has now forwarded a letter dated 8th March 2018 for appropriate action at our end after the approval of the Hon'ble Minister of Culture. WHEREAS the undersigned has considered the facts and circumstances and reports of the aforesaid two committees, in view of the same, it is expedient to revoke the blacklisting of the above mentioned 22 artists unconditionally with effect from the date of issuance of this order. All the affected individual artists be intimated vide letters at their last available address. The present notice is issued for public knowledge as well". 13. The above order was issued by the administrator of the said Lalit Kala Akademi. 14. All the affected individual artists be intimated vide letters at their last available address. The present notice is issued for public knowledge as well". 13. The above order was issued by the administrator of the said Lalit Kala Akademi. 14. In respect of the prayer made in the writ application, which in my view little defective, above mentioned order dated 13.03.2018 hearing has been by this Court for clarification of the point that in the writ application the petitioner has made prayer for rescind, recall, revoke withdraw and cancel the impugned second and third lines of the said entry Mukul Panwar, a party to the writ application. 15. In reply to the query of this Court the petitioner has intimated that as the order dated 13th March, 2018 mentioned the name of Mukul Panwar and not name of Pankaj Panwar i.e. the petitioner and as the entry in the said notice awarding punishment (being annexure P-5) is in respect of Mukul Panwar, the withdrawal of the black listing of Mukul Panwar naturally removes the punishment awarded against him considering him brother of Mukul Panwar. He is not brother of Mukul Panwar and there is no relationship between him and said Mukul Panwar which he had sated in his writ application. 16. By the said order dated March13, 2018 the black listing of Mukul Panwar and other artists have been revoked. Therefore, there is no existence of the above punishment awarded to Mukul Panwar and the petitioner, considering the petitioner, as brother of Mukul Panwar which is not correct according to the petitioner. This denial of alleged relationship has not been challenged before me by the concerned respondents and therefore I hold that the petitioner is in no way related to Mukul Panwar and I further hold that as the punishment was awarded to the petitioner also beside Mukul Panwar on the basis of a wrong nation as to their relationship and as the punishment was awarded to the petitioner without giving him any opportunity of hearing the punishment awarded to the petitioner in no way could stand even if the said order dated 13th March, 2018 was not passed. The petitioner case has its own merit. The order dated 13th March, 2018 has come to the aid of the petitioner to remove the blame put upon him wrongly by the Lalit Kala Akademi. The petitioner case has its own merit. The order dated 13th March, 2018 has come to the aid of the petitioner to remove the blame put upon him wrongly by the Lalit Kala Akademi. I find that the case of the petitioner which has enough merit for allowing this application. 17. In the facts and circumstances as discussed above the writ application is allowed. The petitioner shall never be considered by the Akademi as a person on whom any punishment was imposed by the said paper notification being Annexure p-5. No costs.