Urvashi Film & Tv Group vs Union Of India & Ors.
2000 Latest Caselaw 1024 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying that directions be issued to the respondents to telecast the serial "JEEVAN DARSHAN" at D.D.I in Prime Time at the earliest. Petitioner claims that the serial is of public importance and interest having educative value and, therefore, these directions are called for. Additionally, petitioner seeks compensation of Rs.20 lacs plus interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and cost of the petition.

2. Petitioner had submitted the script of T.V. Serial "JEEVAN DARSHAN" under the new Sponsorship Scheme, in 1993. Respondents notified the petitioner vide their letter dated 27.8.1993, that as per the random computerized draw of lots for prioritization of proposals, petitioner's serial had been listed at priority No.32. under the Family Serials Category. Petitioner was also informed that there was no scope to consider waitlisted proposals for the prime time slots. Respondent enquired about his willingness to come on the non prime time slots.

3. Learned counsel, Mr. K.C.Mittal, appearing for the petitioner urged that the respondents thereafter maintained complete silence. It was only in August, 1997 that the petitioner was asked to produce a pilot of the serial, for placing it before the Selection Committee of Doordarshan for a final decision, failing which the approval of petitioner's proposal, would be deemed to have lapsed automatically. As per this communication, the pilot of the programme was then to be placed before the Preview Committee and in the event, Committee desired certain modifications, the petitioner was to be advised of the same. The letter also mentions that decision of the Committee in all cases would be final. Petitioner duly submitted the pilot of the programme and was waiting thereafter for clearance for telecasting. Petitioner made several representations and had sought administrative redress also through different functionaries but to no avail.

Finally, vide letter of 22.6.2000, respondent informed the petitioner of the rejection of the serial. The relevant extract is as under:- "Because of the large number of pending proposals and limited telecast time, it took some time for us to respond to your proposal and we regret this delay and appreciate your patience. The pilot of your programme has been previewed, but we regret that it has not been found possible to accept it for telecast on DD-1. Hence you are free to explore other avenues."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Preview Committee of the respondent was only entitled to suggest modifications and it was not its function to reject the serial, the proposal for which he claims already stood approved. Learned counsel also argued that in fact the petitioner's serial, which was waitlisted at No.32, would have found its due place even in the prime slots, if the respondent had not been extending the episode of certain favoured serials, beyond their original allotted numbers. Learned counsel submitted that there was discriminatory treatment for ulterior motives and extraneous reasons. Petitioner had been made to suffer for no fault of his. The petitioner claims compensation of Rs. 20 lacs for losses suffered and expenses incurred.

5. Advance copy of the writ petition had been served. Mr. Jayant Bhushan has appeared on behalf of the respondent. On 25.9.2000, learned counsel for the respondent was requested to seek instructions with regard to the position of the various serials that had been waitlisted since the petitioner claimed that with priority No.32 he would have even in normal course got his turn for telecast of his serial. Respondents have placed a written note on record, where they have submitted that under its New Sponsorship Scheme (NSS) in October, 1990, 3540 proposals were received in all. Out of these, the concepts of 449 serials were approved by the various Selection Committees consisting of officials and outside experts on the basis of scripts in different categories. These serials then on the basis of random computer survey were prioritized and 118 serials were categorised in the first list. In the second list, which is called the wait list, 198 serials were approved on the basis of scripts, including that of the petitioner. Petitioner' programme was at serial No. 32 in the wait list.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that initially the scripts were studied and those found acceptable for further consideration were duly registered. Learned counsel for the respondent also repelled the suggestion that once the proposal had been registered, the serial had to be telecast. He submitted that not only in the case of the petitioner but in all other cases also the Selection Committee i.e. the Preview Committee would view the pilot, as submitted, and then take a decision with regard to their acceptability. It is not only the case of the petitioner but in all cases where the pilots were not found acceptable, the Preview Committee recommended their rejection.

7. Having considered the rival submissions and the position with regard to the submission of proposal/scripts of serial, their registration and processing, selection and viewing by Preview Committee, I am of the view that no case is made out of any discrimination against the petitioner in the matter of consideration of his serial being telecast. Except for bald and vague allegation of malafides and discrimination, petitioner has failed to lay the foundation or basis for the said pleas. The respondent has sufficiently explained the delay entailed on account of the large number of proposals of serials, as registered and waitlisted as also the constraints of availability of telecasting time etc. There is also merit in the submission that the Preview Committee is to consider the pilot of the programme to decide its acceptability for its telecast finally and its function was not confined to merely suggesting additions or alterations. That is only a supplementary function, in case the serial is approved for telecasting. Coming to the other relief sought in the writ petition, the prayer made for compensation of Rs.20 lacs, is in the nature of a pecuniary claim, which cannot ordinarily be considered in the domain of writ jurisdiction.

8. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.