Samidha Productions vs Broadcasting Corporation Of ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 2123 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

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

2. The petitioner in response to an advertisement of respondent No. 2 i.e. Directorate General, Doordarshan, inviting proposals, under the new sponsorship scheme in September, 1990, gave his proposal for telecasting a serial. Petitioner offered to telecast his serial 'Jhumru or Saat Thug" under the categories of children serials. Certain discrepancies were pointed out to the petitioner by respondent No. 2. Petitioner claims to have removed the same.

3. In the year 1992, the petitioner's serial was listed at item No. 7 in the wait list for the prime slot. Subsequently, the respondents informed the petitioner that there has been a change and prioritisation of serials would be done by random number generation through a computer. Based on the 'random generation' petitioner's serial was waitlisted at priority No. 21. The petitioner waited in vain to hear from the respondent, but to no avail. The respondent thereafter enquired of the petitioner whether he would be willing to accept the non-prime slot, as there was no scope for telecasting the waitlisted proposals for a few years on the prime time slots. Petitioner indicated his willingness to have his serials on the non-prime time slot. The respondent thereafter informed the petitioner that his serial had been waitlisted under the New Sponsorship Scheme Along with the other waitlisted serials.

4. Thereafter, on 29th September, 1997, respondent asked the petitioner to produce a pilot of the programme at his own cost and risk and to submit the same to the respondent within a period of three months for consideration by the Selection Committee/Preview Committee. On 28th December, 1997, the petitioner submitted the pilot programme to the respondent. The petitioner kept on reminding the respondents for telecasting of his serial, but there was no response. Ultimately, on 22nd June, 2000, the respondents informed the petitioner that the pilot programme of the petitioner's serial has not approved for telecasting on DD-1. The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to allot a prime time slot to the petitioner for telecasting serial 'Jhumru or Saat Thag'. Petitioner also sought compensation for the losses suffered.

5. Petitioner has filed an additional affidavit to bring on record certain developments which were not mentioned in the writ petition. The petitioner who was disgusted with the non-telecasting of his serial on DD-1 requested the respondent to consider the same for telecasting on DD-2 Metro Channel. The respondents in response to the petitioner's request for telecasting his serial at DD-2, informed him that it has been slated for telecasting from 12th July, 1998 for 26 episodes. The petitioner sought extension of time, vide his letter dated 6th July, 1998 for telecasting the same. Petitioner again applied for extending the date of telecasting on 4th August, 1998. The respondents thereupon, on 29th October, 1998 finally informed the petitioner to resume the telecast immediately or else the slot would be withdrawn.

6. Mr. Vashisht, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the actions of the respondents as arbitrary and discriminatory. He submits that the petitioner after the successful preparation of the script of the serial was left in uncertainty for a long period. As regards the final rejection of the serial for telecasting on DD-1 by the Preview Committee, Mr. Vashisht submit that once the petitioner had been asked to prepare a pilot for the serial, the scope of the Preview Committee was confined to suggesting some modifications or improvements and it could not reject the same.

I am afraid similar plea has been rejected by this Bench in Urvashi Films & TV Group v. Union of India and Ors. (C.W. No. 5674/2000) decided on 28th September, 2000. In the cited case, it was held that the Preview Committee while considering the pilot of a programme is to decide its acceptability for telecast finally. Its function was not confined to merely suggesting additions or alterations. The latter was only a supplementary function. An LPA against the said decision was filed, but he same has been dismissed by the Division Bench. This submission, accordingly, will not advance petitioner's case.

7. Coming to the second plank of the petitioner's submission, Mr. Vashisht very strenuously urged that there was arbitrariness in the decision making process of the respondents in as much as the Committee headed by the same Convener Ms. Usha Bhasin, Controller of Programme had approved the said serial for telecasting on DD-2, while rejecting the same for DD-1. The submission appears attractive on the first flush. However, a deeper consideration would show that the criteria, requirements of content and the standards of serials for acceptability for the two channels may be different. The respondents in the counter-affidavit and the additional affidavit have set out that even though the Committee may have been headed by the same person, the composition of the Committee was different. Secondly, it is argued that DD-1 is a national channel where the acceptability criteria, requirement of content and standards are different from those for metro stations of the country. There is merit in this submission.

Besides. In the absence of specific allegations of malafides or discriminatory treatment or manifest arbitrariness in the selection process, the Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the expert committees, in the instant case that of the Selection/Preview Committee. Additionally, it may be noticed that the petitioner himself has not even availed of the option of telecasting of the serial on DD-2.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.