Doordarshan Empaneled ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 191 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

Page 0604

1. The challenge in these Petitions is to the advertisement published by the Directorate of Extension (DOE), Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India on the subject of application for Empanelment of Producers of Audio-Video Films/Spots. Three criteria have been published therein. Firstly that adequate qualifications with minimum professional experience of three preceding years in the field of audio-video productions should exist. After some argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner had correctly given up his assault on this criteria.

2. The second conditions is that the Petitioner should have produced at lease 20 good quality audio-video programmes in the last three years. The aspect of the objection is that a serial should not constitute only one programme. This contention be looked into by the Respondents, since a production spanning several hours cannot be equated to another which may be restricted to one hour or less. It is, however, not open to the Petitioners to challenged or dictate how many programmes should be specified by the Respondents as a pre-requirement for empanelment. The third criteria prescribes that the audio-video production work in the last three years should be of a value of at lease Rs.150.00 lakhs. Once again the Court cannot interfere with the discretion or opinion of another Authority.

3. While exercising judicial review of executive decisions the Court ought not to travel beyond an inquiry into whether any constitutional mandates have been violated and/or whether the decision is reasonable in the Wednesbury mould. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the second and third criteria do not bear any nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. It has been vehemently argued that the purpose behind laying down very high standards is to favor certain parties only.

4. The decisions of the State, as also an Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution, must conform to the tests laid down in Tata Cellular v. Union of India where the Supreme Court has recorded its opinion in these words:

The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be:

1. Whether a decision/making authority exceeded its powers?

2. Committed an error of law.

3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice,

4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or,

5. abused its powers.

Page 0605

Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilllment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under:

(i) Illegality : This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must given effect to it.

(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness.

(iii) Procedural impropriety.

The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Brind, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, 'consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention.

Wednesbury reasonableness derives its origin in Associated Provincial Picture Homes Limited v. Wednesbury Corporation (1947) 2 All E.R. 680 and has been explained to require that the 'person entrusted with discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his attention to matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules he may truly be said to be acting unreasonably. Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority.

4. Since the pre-conditions have been clearly spelt out, there is no scope for contending that Article 14, which enshrines equality principles has been violated. Even if only a few persons fulfilll the criteria that would not be sufficient reason for this Court to interfere in the impugned executive decision. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner with care I am unable to detect any unreasonableness in the impugned policy. In State of Punjab v. Pritam Singh & Sons , the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find any violation in the principles of natural justice where the tender of the Respondent was not considered as he was not enlisted Class I contractor at the material time. Reliance on Budhan Choudhry v. The State of Bihar does not advance his case as the two conditions spelt out therein have not been transgressed. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal , the Court was concerned with delay. In Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation , the Hon'ble Supreme Court saw no error in a jural investigation into the existence of malice in the ground of commercial contract. Malice is not the ground on which the policy has been attacked. In Kumari Srilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. , a distinction had been drawn between a private and public contract and it was enunciated that in the latter case it must be in public interest. None of the Page 0606criteria prescribed in the advertisement can be viewed as being contrary to public interest. It would not be proper to equate public interest as synonymous with free participation to all concerned, regardless of ability demonstrated through past experience. Reliance has also been placed on Radhey-Shyam Singh v. Union of India , Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union and Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation 2001 VII AD (S.C.) 581.

5. No grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution are warranted.

6. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed.