ORDER : E.S.INDIRESH, J. 1. In W.P.No.12146 of 2016, the petitioners are assailing impugned award list produced at Annexure-R published by the respondent No.1, to the extent that "Best Children Film Award" is declared to be awarded to movie "Banaadi" is illegal inter-alia sought for a direction to the respondent-State to award the "Best Children Film Award" to the movie " Billion Dollar Baby" directed by the petitioner No.2, and produced by the petitioner No.1. 2. In W.P.No.29972 of 2016, the petitioner is assailing the constitution of the Advisory Committee at Annexure-A dated 07.12.2015, to award the State Film Awards for the year 2014 inter-alia to quash the Committee's Report dated 12.02.2016 at Annexure-B. 3. Since the issues involved in both writ petitions are interconnected, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 4. I have heard Sri. K.N. Nitish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, for the petitioners and Sri. D. Ashwathappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in W.P.No.12146 of 2016; Sri. Sunil Kumar S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.29972 of 2016; Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 5. In W.P.No.12146 of 2016, Sri. K.N. Nitish, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the Committee constituted for awarding film award, for the year 2014 was misguided and has selected the best children film -'Banaadi', which secured total 66 marks from the members of the Committee, however, the film produced and directed by the petitioners, - 'Billion Dollar Baby' had secured 42 marks. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the selection process was not conducted properly and that the Committee failed to appreciate the merit of their film. Accordingly, they sought interference by this Court in the selection and award process. 6. In W.P.No.29972 of 2016, it is argued by the Sri. Sunil Kumar S., learned counsel for the petitioner that, the constitution of the Advisory Committee by the respondent-State, for selecting the award movie for the year 2014, is incorrect and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 7. Per contra, Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submitted that the Committee was duly constituted by the State Government in accordance with the Film Policy, 2011 (Chalana Chitra Neeti). 7. Per contra, Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, submitted that the Committee was duly constituted by the State Government in accordance with the Film Policy, 2011 (Chalana Chitra Neeti). The members of the Committee were experts and renowned personalities in the field of cinema, and the selection of the Best Children’s Film was made after a proper evaluation of all eligible entries. 8. It is further contended that this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal over the decision of an expert body constituted for such purposes. The scope of interference under Article 226 is limited only to examining the decision-making process, not the decision itself. 9. Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- State also submitted that the marks awarded by each Committee member clearly demonstrates that “Banaadi” was the highest scorer with 66 marks, while “Billion Dollar Baby” received only 42 marks. Hence, he argued that, there is no ground for interference. 10. Sri. D. Ashwathappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4, adopted the arguments of the learned Additional Government Advocate and further submitted that the award pertains to the year 2014, and any interference at this distant point in time i.e. after more than a decade would serve no purpose. It is emphasized that there was no arbitrariness or malafide exercise of power by the members of the Committee, and therefore, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 11. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not dispute that the State Government has constituted the Committee for the purpose of selection of awardees for awarding 'State Film Award'. The award of the State Film Award as per the Film Policy 2011, (Chalana Chitra Neeti). The State Government has constituted the Award Committee, who are having expertise in the filed of Cinema and they were renounced film personalities and this Court cannot examine the domain of the State Government in respect of the appointment of Committee Members, unless the petitioners' establish that the Government acted arbitrarily. 12. The records reveal that applications were invited for the selection of the Best Children’s Film Award for 2014. The Committee members viewed the films submitted therein and awarded marks to each of the films. 12. The records reveal that applications were invited for the selection of the Best Children’s Film Award for 2014. The Committee members viewed the films submitted therein and awarded marks to each of the films. The film “Banaadi” secured 66 marks and was recommended as the Best Children’s Film, while the petitioners’ film “Billion Dollar Baby” secured only 42 marks. 13. It is a well-settled principle of law that when an Expert Committee is constituted to make a selection based on its professional judgment, the Court, in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the expert body. Judicial review is confined only to examining the fairness, legality, and transparency of the decision- making process and not the merits of the decision itself. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the process adopted by the Committee was arbitrary, biased, or contrary to the prescribed policy. The composition of the Committee and its evaluation process appears to be in accordance with law. 14. In view of the above, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the decision of the State Government or the recommendations of the Award Committee. Accordingly, W.P. No.12146 of 2016 and W.P. No.29972 of 2016 stand dismissed