Jaidev vs Prasar Bharti And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1406 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The petitioner claiming to be a social worker has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a public interest petition alleging huge losses caused to the public exchequer as a result of the alleged illegal acts of the respondents.

2. The petition is based on a newspaper report published in the Hindustan Times dated 18.10.2000 followed up by reports published on 19.10.2000, 21.10.2000 and also a report published in "The Week" on 5.11.2000. The petitioner also claims to have made personal enquiries into the matter and it is averred that the petition is based both on the newspaper reports and on the basis of information given to the petitioner.

3. The matter in issue relates to a serial 'Truck Dhina Dhin' (referred to as the said serial) which was telecast on the Doordarshan. The petitioner is seeking a writ directing Central Bureau of Investigation to register an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against persons stated in the petition, holding of an impartial investigation by the CBI after seizing relevant files and documents pertaining to the transaction, steps for recovery of amount due to M/s. Prasar Bharti in respect of the said serial, action against officers of Prasar Bharti as well as the then Minister of Information and Broadcasting in the Central Government.

4. A company known as M/s. Integral Productions (Pvt.) Limited was the producer and sponsorer of the said serial and it is stated in the petition that as per the records of the Registrar of Companies the wife and the son of then Minister of Information and Broadcasting, Mr. Pramod Mahajan had interest in the company along with Mr. and Mrs. Khan. The interest of Mr. Rahul Mahajan son of the then Minister of Information and Broadcasting is stated to have arisen by acquisition of shares and appointment as Director on 30.4.1999. This serial is stated to have been approved for telecast on Doordarshan. The proposal is stated to have been submitted on 18.6.1999 and the approval is stated to have been granted on 21.6.1996 with understand the Prasar Bharti would be paid Rs. 35 lacs per episode as minimum guarantee amount. The file number and the dates have also been set out in the petition. It is further alleged that Mr. Pramod Mahajan was the Minister of Information and Broadcasting at that time when the proposal was submitted and continued to hold the post even after the approval of the serial. It is alleged (by quoting nothings on the file) that special interest was taken by the Office of then Minister of Information and Broadcasting. These allegations are based on personal enquiries and investigation apart from the news reports.

5. The petitioner has made grievance alleging undue influence in approval of the serial within a period of 3 days and the alleged nexus between the then Chief Executive Officer of Prasar Bharti, Mr. R.R. Shah who was so appointed on 11. (sic). 1999 and was simultaneously holding the charge of Additional Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. It is alleged that the serial which was initially sanctioned for 26 episodes was pushed to prime time by replacing another popular serial. The grievance made is in respect of the terms of the contract as also the fact the after the 26th episode without any extension letter the programme was submitted for further telecast and the same was continuing. The main grievance appears to be that though there were outstanding due of about Rs. 4 crores to the Prasar Bharti on account of the telecast of the said serial, the defaulter company was permitted to continue the telecast rather than Prasar Bharti making endeavor to recover the amount from the defaulting company. In this behalf also extracts from the file were quoted.

6. A further development is stated to have occurred after amount of Rs. 6.5 crores was allegedly due from the defaulting company whereby it was proposed that the production and marketing of the said serial would be handed over to M/s. Maya Entertainment Limited and meeting for this was being held on 23.5.2000. It is alleged that after the initial discussions and understanding whereby M/s. Maya Entertainment Limited had accepted certain financial liabilities the said company changed its name and despite that the programme continued. It is thus stated that the CEO of Prasar Bharti Under the influence of the then Minister of Information and Broadcasting, Mr. Pramod Mahajan agreed to defer the payment from the company, allow change of marketing agency, despite change in marketing agency continue the earlier company to produce the episodes, accept defaulter company's excuses for non-payment and permit the defaulting company to benefit from the Prasar Bharti causing losses to Prasar Bharti. It is further alleged that M/s Maya Entertainment is also a company which had connections with the Minister and the CEO of Prasar Bharti having availed of certain works being assigned by Prasar Bharti. It is alleged that the Hon'ble Minister knew of the developments and in fact conducted himself in a manner contrary to his oath of office and thus action was liable to be taken against the said Minister and Mr. Rajiv Ratan Shah under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

7. It is also relevant to state that verbatim copies of the file nothings have been annexed to the main petition from pages 121 to 128 dealing with the serial in issue. The nothings are in respect of some incorporations to be made by the producers in pursuance to the observations of the Preview Committee, the acceptance of serial and its extension apart from the issue of recovery of arrears due from the company.

8. Notice to show cause was issued in the petition on 17.1.2001 and the relevant records were directed to be produced on the next date. The said records were produced in the Court in a sealed cover. In terms of the order dated 23.1.2001, the programme file was kept in the sealed cover while the photocopy of the commercial file was directed to be handed over in sealed cover to the Court. A further order was passed on 21.5.2001 on an application by the petitioner being C.M. 5404/2001 directing that the photocopy of the records pertaining to M/s. Maya Entertainment would also be placed in a sealed cover before the Court.

9. A further direction was issued on the said date on C.M. 5405/2001 filed by the respondent seeking copies of the rules and policies in terms whereof the respondents were directed to supply the following rules and policies with copies to the petitioner.

(i) Rules/policies relating to the allotment of serial/programme in the category of minimum guarantee amount.

(ii) Rules/policies relating to the serial/programme in the sponsored category.

(iii) Rules/policies relating to the serial/programme in the category of advance payment basis.

10. A counter-affidavit has been was filed on behalf of the Prasar Bharti, respondent No. 1, by Mr. T.K. Das, Controller of Programmes in Prasar Bharti Corporation. It has been categorically averred in the said counter-affidavit that no special favors were shown to the said serial, the manner of approval of the serial, the time within which it was approved and the criteria for the same was in no way different from the manner and criteria adopted and time taken while dealing with the other serials. The procedure adopted by Prasar Bharti for approval of serials was set out in the counter-affidavit. It is stated that the said procedure involves submission of the format of the serial along with process fee which is thereafter considered by the Preview Committee for purposes of accepting or rejecting or rejecting it or suggesting modifications. The decision is intimated to the producer and in case of modifications being suggested by the Preview Committee, the producer has to accept the modification in serial to be approved. The serial is thereafter formally approved and pursuant thereto a time slot is allotted to the serial. It is further stated that taking into consideration the nature of the business which is extremely competitive, a flexibility in the working system has to be ensured though there is no time bound procedure.

11. The counter-affidavit also states that the serial was one of the most successful serials rating-wise on the Doordarshan channel in terms of Television Rating Point (TRP's). It is also stated that rating of the serial started from 9.9% and gradually rose to over 12% with the same being around 10% for a considerable period of time. A 10 plus TRP rating is stated to be considered a highly successful programme rating.

12. Insofar as the said serial is concerned it is stated that a proposal was received in May, 1999 but the same was not accompanied with the processing fee and thus was not processed. The process fee is stated to have been deposited on 17.6.1999 and pursuant thereto the same was previewed by the Preview Committee which suggested certain changes in the serial and the same were communicated to the producer. On 21.6.1999 the producer indicated his willingness to incorporate all changes as suggested by the Preview Committee. Consequently, a letter dated 21.6.1999 being the formal approval of the serial was communicated to the producer. It is further stated that a letter of approval does not indicate a commitment of any nature whatsoever on the part of the Prasar Bharti since a number of changes are carried out by the producer which are subjective in character and in the absence of satisfaction of the Programming Section of Prasar Bharti, it is open to reject the programme. The commitment is stated to arise only when the letter of slotting is issued which in the case of the said serial was issued on 19.7.1979. i.e., 28 days after the letter of approval. It is further stated that for a number of serials letter of slotting was granted on the same day of the approval. Though the initial slotting letter was issued on 10.9.1999 for the serial to commence from 15.9.1999, the same was stated to have been revised subsequently changing the commencement dated to 29.9.1999.

13. In order to show the impartiality in the procedure it has been stated that prior to the issue of slotting letter the producer had made a request for lowering the category other the programme from 'Super A' to "A Special" which would have meant a financial benefit of Rs. 5 lacs per telecast to the producer but the same was declined. Even the request for extra 90 seconds free commercial time as a special case claimed by the producer was declined. At this stage, it is relevant to state that there is no specific denial in the rejoinder to these averments.

14. The issue of pendency of the payments due from the producer for the said serial has also been dealt in the affidavit. It is stated that on 8.2.2000 the serial was put on advance payment since a sum of Rs. 1.68 crores was outstanding. At the stage of the telecast on 26th episode on 5.4.2000 the outstanding is stated to be 4 crores. A payment schedule was discussed and apparently worked out requiring the producer to pay the minimum guarantee plus Rs. 15.56 lacks each week. Since the producer could not keep the commitment, the serial is stated to have been taken off the air on 17.5.2000 and ultimately a new producer Maya Entertainment Limited is stated to have taken over the production and marketing of the programme. The allegation about nothings emanating from the Minister's Office by the OSD and PS to the Minister for issuance of letter of approval on a particular day has been referred to contend that the letter itself was conditional upon certain changes in serial made and did not constitute any commitment on behalf of Doordarshan to telecast this serial which would have arisen only when the letter of slotting was issued.

15. The counter-affidavit categorically states that there is no correspondence or other communication between Prasar Bharti and any relative of the then Minister of I & B, who in any case ceased to be Minister of I & B in October, 1999 till which stage the producer was no way in default. It is also stated that there are outstanding from each of the 23 producers as set out in the counter-affidavit and it is the trade practice to find resolution of commercial matters and not readily discontinue a successful serial. The normal credit term of Doordarshan is stated to be 60 days from the first month following the month of telecast and before even the payment of the first episode became due, Sh. Pramod Mahajan is stated to have ceased to be the Minister of I & B. The outstanding against the account for non-payment is explained as a consequence of the accounting practice followed by the Doordarshan where the said amount is shown outstanding after the normal credit period. It is, however, stated that in the market,m more time is required than the normal credit period since the revenue flows from the advertisers and advertising agencies and thus it is not unknown for producers to take 3 to 6 months in making payment. Out of the 24 MG programmes, only two programmes are stated to be without arrears, largely on account of the slow realisation from the market. Further it is stated that revenue normally starts flowing in when a telecast crosses mid-point of the number of episodes and Doordarshan normally accommodates producers and grants extension as routine specially keeping in mind the stiff competition faced by the visual-media industry. The reason for the Doordarshan to have agreed to shift the programme to another producer is stated to be arising out the best commercial interest so that continuity of the telecast is maintained.

16. In para 23 of the said counter-affidavit the recovery position of the serial has been shown which is stated to amount to Rs. 4.31 crores including a bank guarantee of Rs. 91 lacs pending with the Bank for encashment and thus the entire sum due from the producer over a period of time is stated to have been realised. These payments are stated to have been made starting from 30.10.2000 to 20.1.2001. The allegations about special favors show to anyone are denied.

17. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, Minister of I&B by Sh. S. Kumar Swamy, Deputy Secretary, Minister of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi. It is stated that Prasar Bharti is an autonomous body and the allegations of any nothings or material which could give credence to an inference of special interest are stated not to be existing in the records of Ministry of I&B.

18. A copious rejoinder has been filed to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 1 running into 66 pages where inter alia the receipt of the proposal on 3.5.1999 is denied and allegations have been made of undue favor. It is relevant to state that the affidavit has been verified as "contents of my above affidavit are true and correct,no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefore". No details have been set out as to what part of the affidavit is based on personal knowledge and what part of the affidavit is based on information received. There is, in, fact, no proper verification of the rejoinder-affidavit as per the requirement of law which envisage disclosure of source of information in case verification is on the basis of information and to separately mention that which para is true to personal knowledge and which para on information.

19. It is further relevant to state that a C.M. 5414/2001 was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking directions inter alia, about the payments received after filing of the petition from defaulter company in which notice was issued to M/s. Integral Productions Pvt. Limited on 21.5.2001. Notice was once again issued by order dated 2.8.2001 to M/s. Integral Productions Pvt. Limited on 10.9.2001 when the matter was next listed the said party was stated to have been served but no reply was filed to the petition. It may also be added that vide index dated 1.8.2001 respondent has filed the guidelines, rate cards and other documents in pursuance to the directions issued on 21.5.2001 in C.M. 5405/2001 and on 10.9.2001 it was stated that apart from the same there is no other rule or policy relating to the serials or programmes.

20. The writ petition along with applications was listed on 10.9.2001 when arguments were heard in the matter. It is relevant to state that just prior to the said date the petitioner moved two applications - one application under Section 151, CPC to prosecute Mr. T.K. Das who had filed the affidavit on behalf respondent No. 1 being C.M. 9471/2001 and another application C.M. 9472/2001 seeking compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 21.5.2001 to provide rules and policies. On the matter being taken up for hearing Mr. A.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that these two applications C.M. 9471 and 9472/2001 should be first heard before proceeding to hear the petition. We asked Mr. Singh to make his submissions on the writ petition but he declined to do so and persisted with his request. This position continued for quite some time and consequently we called upon Mr. Harish Salve, learned Solicitor General to advance his submission on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Senior Advocate to advance his submissions on behalf of respondent No. 1. It is only in rejoinder that Mr. A.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner made his submissions on the case as if the same were his opening arguments. It may be further noted that after the arguments were concluded and the judgment was reserved on the same date, C.M. 9663/2001 was moved on behalf of the petitioner. Permission was sought to inspect the record of M/s. Integral Productions Private Limited and M/s. Maya Entertainment Limited and to hear the Counsel for the petitioner thereafter on the legal point and to consider the rejoinder filed. This application was dismissed by order dated 13.9.2001.

21. Mr. Harish Salve, learned Solicitor General drew our attention to page 121 to 128 of the paper book to contend that nothings from the files of the record has been produced verbatim and thus the petitioner had access to the records of Government of India and the Prasar Bharti relating to the present dispute. We may add that we had questioned the learned Counsel for the petitioner about the source of the petitioner whereby he had access to the record and reason for reproduction of complete nothings of files of the respondents. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, declined to disclose the source of information to the petitioner. The learned Solicitor General thus contended that the petitioner has been moving one application after the other only with the object of keeping the petition pending so as to cause embarrassment to the persons concerned and the petition being used as a tool for publicity and for embarrassing persons holding public offices.

22. The learned Solicitor General also relied on the statement made in the counter-affidavit to the effect that there was no special favor shown to the serial and the fact that it took more time to issue the letter of approval than had taken place in case of certain other serials. The first telecast was on 29.9.1999 while Mr. Pramod Mahajan ceased to be the Minister of I&B on 30.10.1999. Thus the learned Solicitor General contended that there was no question of any undue favor or pressure insofar as the pendency of the dues was concerned. The learned Solicitor General also strongly relied on the TRP ratings of the programme to contend that the programme was a successful programme and some accommodation was shown and normally keeping in mind the peculiarities of the trade, a longer rope has to be given in terms of time period for recovery of the dues. In this behalf the learned Solicitor General submitted that there wee large outstanding from other producers also and this problem arose in view of the accounting procedure adopted which as been set out in the counter-affidavit.

23. The accounting practice shows outstanding of the amount after normal period while in terms of the market practice producers of serials require more than normal time to collect their revenues and, therefore, it is not unknown for the producers to take 3 to 6 months to make the payments. Learned Solicitor General also strongly rebutted any allegations of special favor by pointing out that though a request had been made in case of the present serial for lowering the category of the programme form 'Super A' to "A Special" which would have entitled the producer to Rs. 5 lacs for each episode, the said request of the producer was declined. The Solicitor General drew our attention to the fact that there was no specific denial to this allegation in the rejoinder-affidavit.

24. Mr. Harish Salve, learned Solicitor General, drew our attention to the comparative chart of 7 serials to show that there was time lapse in the date of proposal and date of slotting letter issued and there was greater time lapse in case of the said serial as compared to other serials. The learned Solicitor General has also strongly refuted the allegations of tampering made in the rejoinder-affidavit in para 13 insofar as the receipt of the proposal on 3.5.1999 is concerned. The learned Solicitor General further submitted whatever guidelines are issued along with rate cards had already been filed and there are no other guidelines to be followed.

25. The learned Solicitor General also strongly objected to the fact that allegations have been made against Mr. Pramod Mahajan without even impleading him as a party. The learned Solicitor General also objected to the tenor and language of the pleadings made by the petitioner which, in his submission, were not appropriate. Insofar as the issue of pendency of dues was concerned the learned Solicitor General drew our attention to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 1 where in para 23 it has been stated that the entire sum due from the producer had been realised over a period of time in full though this amount included a bank guarantee of Rs. 91 lacs which was pending for encashment. It may be stated that in C.M. 9471/2001 the petitioner has set out that the said bank guarantee was still outstanding as the amount had not been paid by Western Cooperative Bank and had sought prosecution of Mr. T.K. Das who had affirmed the counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1. The affidavit of Mr. T.K. Das had clearly stated that the full amount was paid including the bank guarantee of Rs. 91 lacs which was pending with the Bank for encashment. Thus it was contended that Mr. Das had never stated that the said amount of Rs. 91 lacs had been realised. The learned Solicitor General drew strength from what had been stated by Mr. T.K. Das to clarify that the said bank guarantee was still pending payment though the Bank had assured that the said payment would be made and the said issue arose out of the problems being faced by the Western Cooperative Bank. The Bank never denied its liabilities.

26. Mr. Harish Salve, learned Solicitor General relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India and Ors., , to contend that there was no case made out for the investigation of CBI in the present case. The Supreme Court observed as under :

"174. The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to investigate 'any other offence' is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Obviously, direction for investigation can be given only if an offence is prima facie, found to have been committed or a person's involvement is prima facie established, but a direction to CBI to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to the concept and philosophy of 'LIFE' and 'LIBERTY' guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. The direction is in compete negation of various decisions of this Court in which the concept of 'LIFE' has been explained in a manner which has infused 'LIFE' into the letter of Article 21."

27. The learned Solicitor General thus contended that the Supreme Court had clearly laid down that the CBI could not be directed to investigate any other offence and only when a prima facie case was found out of a person having committed an offence that a direction can be issued to the CBI to investigate the matter but no direction could be issued to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not. The learned Solicitor General submitted that the relief claimed by the petitioner for investigation by CBI was fully covered by the observations of the Supreme Court aforesaid.

28. The learned Solicitor General submitted that in any case the matter was liable to be closed in view of the amounts having been recovered insofar as the pendency of the dues was concerned and the case having been made out for no special favor having been shown to the said serial.

29. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Senior Advocate representing respondent No. 1 also made submissions on the same line as advanced by Mr. Harish Salve, learned Solicitor General. The learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1 sought to deny what he referred to as the wild allegations made both in the petition and rejoinder and specifically drew our attention to the allegations of documents being "cooked up and concocted" on page 229 of the paper book and the allegations made on page 230 of the paper book stating that M/s. Maya Entertainment Limited and the defaulting company had given an impression to respondent No. 1 that it would accept the financial liability to contend that these pleadings were without any basis. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the impression was sought to be conveyed as if the petitioner was setting in the meeting. The learned Senior Counsel also referred to certain other pleadings only with the object of stating that the allegations were without any basis and without understanding the competitive nature of the trade and the trade practices where financial accommodation in terms of the period of time for payment has to be show by respondent No. 1 specially keeping in mind the stiff competition being faced.

30. Mr. A.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder really attempted to argue the full case. Mr. Singh sought to rely on documents to show involvement of Mr. Rahul Mahajan, son of the then Minister of I&B, in the company M/s. Integral Productions Pvt. Ltd. as also Mrs. Rekha Mahajan. Mr. Singh referred to the minutes filed by him along with petition and contended that the nothings of 21.6.1999 clearly show the interference of then Minister of I&B. The nothings are as under:

"As advised by DDG TRM, this is a reference from MIB's Office (OSD & PS). We may issue the letter today."

31. Mr. Singh also sought to throw doubts on the TRP ratings stating that the same are not reliable and further stated that it was a clear case where favors have been shown to the serial by proceeding in an undue haste for clearance of the same. He referred to the chart relied upon by the respondents and filed along with the counter-affidavit showing comparisons of the different serials to contend that the date of approval and the date of slotting was identical in all cases except the said serial and thus no inference could be drawn by the date of slotting letter in the case of the said serial. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was no doubt that amounts were outstanding and but for the present petition no steps would have been taken to recover the outstanding amounts. Mr. Singh further strongly relied on his application C.M. 9471/2001 to contend that a misleading statement had been made by Mr. T.K. Das inasmuch as the full amount had not been recovered in respect of the said serial and an amount of Rs. 91 lacs covered by the bank guarantee by the Western Cooperative Bank was yet to be recovered. He further submitted that interest should be charged @ 18% per annum on the outstanding amounts due from the party.

32. Mr. Singh further renewed his request that he should be heard only after disposal of C.M. Nos. 9471/2001 and 9472/2001.

33. We have duly considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. We have also had the benefit of perusing the records produced by the respondents in respect of the serial.

34. The present petition is in the nature of a public interest petition. The duty of the petitioner in such a case is to bring an aspect of public importance to the notice of the Court and thereafter it is the Court's responsibility to enquire into the same. It is strictly not in the nature of adversorial litigation. There is no doubt that the petitioner can continue to be called upon by the Court to assist in the matter in question so that an issue of public interest is dealt with in an appropriate manner. This, is in our view, is the scope of a public interest petition. The Court has to be cautions and careful that a public interest petition should not be converted into a "private interest petition" or a "publicity interest petition". We are constrained to observed this because the manner in which the present petition has been sought to be prosecuted leaves us with an impression that an attempt has been made to keep the petition pending, whatever may have been the original cause brought to the notice of the Court. The Court had given an opportunity to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to set forth its case which the Counsel declined at the relevant stage. Despite considerable latitude being shown to him he persisted in arguing C.Ms. 9471 and 9472/2001 which had been filed just before the date of hearing.

35. It is also relevant to point out that C.M. 9471/2001 had bene filed for taking cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by Mr. T.K. Das who had filed the counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1. The basis for this is stated to be averment made in the counter-affidavit that the entries sums due from the producer had been over a period of time, realised in full. But what has to be appreciated is that in the same paragraph it had been set out that the bank guarantee of Rs. 91 lacs was still pending with the Bank for encashment. Thus clearly no false statement has been made in the counter-affidavit and as such the application (C.M. 9471/2001) is misconceived.

36. By the second application (C.M. 9472/2001) the petitioner prayed for production of rules and regulations which the petitioner claimed to exist. The learned Solicitor General, on a query from the Court, clearly stated in instructions that other than the guidelines already filed in Court along with rating card there were no other rules and policies which existed in this behalf. Thus, both these applications do not really survive for consideration and are liable to be dismissed.

37. The petitioner did not even let the matter go at that and further made an application C.M. 9663/2001 after the judgment was reserved. In the application averments have been made that the petitioner was under the impression that only when a reply would be filed by M/s. Integral Productions Pvt. Ltd. the matter would proceed. This is without any basis. It was for M/s. Integral Productions Pvt. Ltd. to have filed a reply, if they so chose. The submission made in the application that the case was not listed for final disposal is only an attempt to later on advance further arguments even after the judgment had been reserved. If a matter is on board and is at admissions stage, it is not open for a Counsel to contend that he did not know that the matter was liable to be heard. A further grievance has been made in the application that the learned Counsel for the appellant was in a personal family problem since his mother had passed away after a long illness on 19.8.2001. No such request was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in his opening submission and the only aspect he had insisted was that without reply being filed to C.Ms. 9471 and 9472/2001 he was not willing to advance any arguments on behalf of the petitioner. It may also be noted that the records of the case had been called for in sealed covers. This did not entitle petitioner to inspect the records. This application C.M. 9663/2001 being wholly misconceived and with an oblique motive of attempting to reopen the case after the judgment had been reserved was dismissed by us on 13.9.2001.

38. The petition brought to the Court's notice the issue of the telecast of the said serial. The records do not show any undue haste and we are in agreement with the submissions advanced by learned Solicitor General that keeping in mind the nature of the trade respondent No. 1 has to work in a business like manner. Not only this it has been rightly submitted that if the time periods for grant of approval, slotting letter and date of commencement of serial are taken into consideration a comparison would show no undue haste in case of the said serial. In fact a comparison shows that the date of slotting has been late in the case of the said serial and there has also been a gap between the date of commencement thereafter. In fact ultimately the serial has to wait for another 2 weeks even after the date of commencement. The original file shows that it was opened only in June, 1999 but the reason for the same is submitted to be the fact that till processing fee is deposited, no file is opened and thus no file was opened in May, 1999.

39. The nothings relied upon by the petitioner do not suggest any direct interference by the then Hon'ble Minister of I&B. The only nothings strongly relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is to some reference made by the OSD and PS to the Minister to issue the letter of approval on the willingness of the producer to incorporate the suggestions of the Preview Committee. After the letter of approval a slotting letter is issued and thereafter the date of commencement is specified. We do not find any merit in the allegations being made out by the petitioner against various officers of respondents 1 and 2 and the then Minister of Information and Broadcasting.

40. Insofar as the aspect of pendency of dues is concerned there is no doubt that amounts were outstanding. The question, however, remained whether the then Minister of I&B had any role to play specifically in view of the fact that he ceased to be Minister on 30.10.1999 prior to even the first Installment being payable. We are in full agreement with the submissions advanced by the learned Solicitor General that there is no basis for the allegations. Each business or trade has its own requirements and as set out in the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 1, indulgence is shown to a large number of producers in terms of time period for realisation of their dues. It appears from the counter-affidavit that the payments after due date is not an unusual phenomenon though there is no doubt that Prasar Bharti should make every endeavor to recover its dues as expeditiously as possible. We cannot ignore the fact that the visual media is facing a lot of completion and the Prasar Bharti has also to work in a business like manner. The result is that Prasar Bharti cannot be away from the market reality of the trade and stay in a cocoon claiming to be a Government instrumentality. If it has to survive and expand its viewership it has to compete in the trade.

41. Finally what is most crucial is that recoveries against the producer has been made and full amount has been realised except the bank guarantee in question for Rs. 91 lacs issued by the Western Cooperative Bank. The learned Solicitor General has already submitted at the Bar, on instructions, that there is no denial of liability by the Bank but because of the recent problems faced by a number of the Cooperative Banks the payment have got delayed and efforts are being made to recover this amount also in an expeditious manner.

42. We have already noted that the rejoinder-affidavit has neither been verified properly and there is no doubt that the general tenor and language of this affidavit leaves something to be desired. The vehemence of the language does suggest that the object of the petition was not merely to bring to the notice of the Court a matter of public interest and thereafter leave the Court to issue appropriate directions. The learned Counsel has further declined to disclose the basis for the information of the petitioner and has quoted verbatim from the files of the respondent. Undoubtedly, the petitioner had access to the compete material in the files.

43. In view of the conspectus of the matter discussed above and in view of the recoveries having been made other than the issue of bank guarantee for which follow-up action is stated to be in progress, we see no reason to keep the matter pending.

44. The petition is thus dismissed with parties left to bear their own costs.

45. Petition dismissed.