$~66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5393/2011
SHAGUFTA YASMIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari & Ms. Suman
Chauhan, Advocates.
Versus
PRASAR BHARTI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 01.08.2011
1. The petitioner had, in response to the advertisement of the respondent in the year 2008 inviting proposals for Short Term Acquisition of Programmes, applied and submitted tapes of 13 episodes of a Programme which were cleared by the Preview Committee of the respondent and a Preview Certificate issued to the petitioner. The respondent however vide its letter dated 21st January, 2010 informed the petitioner that owing to the petitioner having not submitted the requisite documents as asked for vide letter dated 12th October, 2009, her application had been rejected. The petitioner continued to represent to the Director General of the respondent W.P.(C) 5393/2011 Page 1 of 4 who vide letter dated 1st June, 2010 informed the petitioner that owing to the petitioner having not adhered to deadline set for submission of mandatory documents, her representation could not be acceded to. The petitioner thereafter made query under the RTI Act and in response thereof was vide letter dated 10th February, 2011 informed that the letter dated 12th October, 2009 demanding documents from her had been returned undelivered to the respondent on 25th November, 2009.
2. The respondent has now on 19th July, 2011 issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why she should not be blacklisted for the reason of being guilty of earlier submitting misleading information to the respondent along with her application aforesaid and having failed to substantiate the same with the documents.
3. This writ petition has been filed impugning the rejection of the application as well as the show cause notice.
4. It appears that the petitioner was quite satisfied with the rejection of nearly one and a half years ago or the rejection of her representation by the Director General of the respondent more than one year ago and has W.P.(C) 5393/2011 Page 2 of 4 challenged the same only when faced with the show cause notice of blacklisting in pursuance thereto.
5. As far as the challenge to the show cause notice is concerned, this Court is reluctant to interfere at the stage of show cause notice and the remedy of the petitioner is to show cause to the respondent including on aspects as agitated here. I do not see any reason why, if there is any merit in the same the order of blacklisting as the counsel for the petitioner has contended will necessarily follow, will follow.
6. It is for the respondent to in the first instance go into the response/defence of the petitioner and this Court cannot substitute itself for the respondent. The Supreme Court in Spcl. Director Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440 has deprecated entertaining petitions challenging show cause notice.
7. Insofar as the challenge by the petitioner to the rejection is concerned, not only is the challenge thereto belated but in the circumstances aforesaid, I am also of the view that the questions involved in the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice would be the same as which the petitioner is now calling upon this Court to adjudicate in the first instance. W.P.(C) 5393/2011 Page 3 of 4
8. This Court cannot by entertaining the petition against the rejection order dated 1st June, 2010 interfere with the proceedings which the respondent is to hold in pursuance to the show cause notice. Even otherwise the question as to what representations the petitioner made, whether any of them were under a bona fide mistake/belief as contended require adjudication of factual matters for which this is not appropriate remedy. It will also have to be seen, whether in such contractual matters, writ remedy is available.
9. There is thus no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed as not maintainable. Needless to add if the petitioner remains aggrieved from the orders passed in pursuance to the show cause notice, the petitioner shall have remedies available in law.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AUGUST 01, 2011 bs..
W.P.(C) 5393/2011 Page 4 of 4