Y.K.Mehta vs Union Of India And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 4650 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                 Date of Decision: 07.10.2013
+   W.P.(C) 7005/2012 & CM 13993/2013
    Y.K.MEHTA
                                                    ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Petitioner in person
                     versus
    UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
                                                 ..... Respondent
                     Through: Mr. Rajeev Mehra, ASG with Ms.
                               Maneesha Dhir, Ms. Vanessa
                               Singh, Ms. Sadhvi Shali and Ms.
                               Shruti Aggarwal, Advs. for R-
                               1,2&4
                               Mr. Rajeev Sharma and Mr.
                               Uddyam Mukherjee, Advs. for R-
                               3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                             JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL) In its meeting held under the Chairmanship of Hon‟ble Prime Minister on 20.5.2010, the National Committee for Commemoration of 150th Birth Anniversary of Swami Vivekananda, inter alia, decided to identify appropriate organizations at local level so that the government could support them to spread message of Swami Vivekananda. An Implementation Committee was also set up to take up the task of examining, approving and monitoring the implementation and reporting back to the National Committee.

2. The petitioner before this Court submitted a proposal to the Chairman of the National Committee on 2.6.2010, offering to produce a two hours film. It was stated in the said letter that his organization „KASY FILMS‟ was producing two feature films in English on Swamiji, which may be examined by the National Committee and if found suitable, a modest support may be extended to him. The proposal of the petitioner was considered by the National Implementation Committee in its meeting held on 3.9.2010. The proposal submitted by the petitioner was, however, rejected on the ground that it lacked the intrinsic merit. The petitioner submitted a new proposal to the National Implementation Committee on 27.7.2012. The said proposal was for production of a feature film on Vivekananda in English. Vide letter dated 8.8.2012, the Ministry of Culture requested the petitioner to submit a detailed proposal clearly mentioning the scope of the project and the financial assistance required by him. Vide communication dated 13.8.2012, the petitioner informed the respondents that the proposed film was on the lines of „Gandhi‟ and the cost of the production would be somewhat around Rs.125 crore. The financial assistance required by the petitioner was to the extent of Rs.15 crore to cover the cost of three dances, all in America. The aforesaid proposal to the extent it is relevant reads as under:

"The financial assistance required is Rs.15 crores (Rs. Fifteen crores) which covers the cost of three dances, all in America. The first dance is in hour of Swamiji soon after his success at the World Parliament of Religions, Chicago. The second one is the common dance of Emma Calve, proposed to be played by Lady Gaga, followed by a tragic song in

the memory of her (Clave‟s) father‟s sudden death. The third dance is Izryl of Sarah Bernhardt proposed to be played by Jennefer Lopaz.

The balance of the cost of production is Rs.110 crores approximately will come from the distributors soon after the completion of these dance sequences."

3. A perusal of the letter dated 5.10.2010, which is the letter impugned in this writ petition would show that the said letter is only a communication to the petitioner informing him that his letters were being forwarded to the Film Division, Mumbai and National Film Development Corporation Limited. It was also noted in the said letter that the Ministry of Culture had already asked the petitioner for a detailed proposal giving the scope of financial assistance required by him. Therefore, it would be seen that neither the proposal initially nor the revised proposal submitted by the petitioner was rejected vide communication dated 5.10.2012. Consequently, the petitioner had no cause of action to seek quashing of the said communication.

4. As regards, the directions sought by the petitioner to respondent no.4 to treat his proposal dated 27.7.2012 on the same parameters as were applied to the proposal of Belur Math for the production of a feature film on Swami Vivekananda, I find that in the writ petitioner, the petitioner has not questioned either the decision dated 3.9.2012 nor he has questioned the second decision dated 21.11.2012. In the absence of any challenge, particularly to the decision dated 21.11.2012, no relief to the petitioner can be granted in this writ petition. In order to succeed, the petitioner was required to assail the decision taken on 21.11.2012 and whow to the court as to how the said decision was in any manner illegal

arbitrary or discriminatory so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That having not been done, the prayers made in the writ petition cannot be granted.

8. Even on merits, it is for the government to examine a particular proposal on its merit and then take a view as to whether the proposal merits any financial assistance from the State or not. The decision in this regard has to be taken by the experts and the Court cannot substitute its own opinion on the opinion of the experts in this regard. The Committee which rejected the proposal of the petitioner in its meeting held on 21.11.2012 comprised Minister of Defence, Minister of Overseas Indian Affairs, Minister of Human Resource Development, Minister of Culture, General Secretary Ramakrishna Mission, Belur, Trustee, Ramakrishna Mission, Belur, Secretary (Culture) - Secretary, Department of Youth Affairs, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Culture, AS & FA Ministry of Culture, Additional Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Joint Secretary, Department of Sports, Principal Resident Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Director, Ministry of Culture, Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Project Coordinator, Ministry of Culture. The petitioner has failed to establish as to how the decision taken by the aforesaid Committee can be said to be illegal or arbitrary so as to warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The Court is not equipped to examine the proposals which the petitioner had submitted to the government and which, as noted earlier, envisages assistance from the government to the extent of Rs.15 crore for including three songs in USA. The decision to reject the proposal of the

petitioner having been taken by a broad-based committee, on merit of the proposal, calls for no interference by this Court. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

There shall be no orders as to costs.

OCTOBER 07, 2013/rd                                        V.K. JAIN, J.