Shagufta Yasmin vs Prasar Bharti
2011 Latest Caselaw 3650 Del

$~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

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

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.

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..