Astra Productions and Another vs Prasar Bharti Broad Casting Corporation of India and Another

J.P. Singh, J.—M/S Astra Productions was blacklisted for a period of two years by the Prasar Bharti, Directorate General, Doordarshan

Bhavan, New Delhi vide order dated 16.04.2009 for adopting unfair means and cheating Doordarshan in submitting thirty blank Tapes out of fifty

two Tapes pertaining to its Programme Rau Mein Hai Rakhsh submitted in response to Short Term Acquisition Scheme advertised by the Prasar

Bharti on 16.02.2006.

M/S Astra Productions and Sudhir Singh Jamwal its proprietor, the Petitioners, questioned the legality of Doordarshan order by their Writ

Petition OWP No. 644/2009. Finding that Doordarshan order of blacklisting the Petitioner was not supported by reasons, this Court, set aside the

order reserving liberty with the Doordarshan to issue fresh Notice to the Petitioner firm enabling it to respond there to and there after pass

appropriate orders after hearing it in the matter.

A Show Cause Notice was thereafter served on the Petitioners. Responding to the Show cause notice, Petitioner No. 1 submitted its explanation

there to through its proprietor. The Directorate General, Doordarshan, considered the Petitioner Response to the show cause notice, and came to

the conclusion that there was no merit in the explanation submitted by M/S Astra Productions. It, therefore, by its reasoned order dated

15.03.2010, ordered that M/S Astra Productions, the proprietorship firm of Mr. Sudhir Singh Jamwal would stand blacklisted for a period of two

years with effect from 15.03.2010 and during this period would not deal with Doordarshan.

The Petitioners have again approached this Court questioning M/S Astra Productions blacklisting on various grounds. In their Response to the

Writ Petition, the Respondents justify Doordarshan order of blacklisting M/S Astra Productions, inter alia, on the grounds appearing in the order

questioned in the Writ Petition.

On this Petition coming up for consideration, Petitioners learned Counsel restricted Petitioners relief in the Writ Petition to urge that the

Directorate General, Doordarshans order blacklisting the Petitioner firm w.e.f. 15.3.2010 was arbitrary, in that, after having initially taken decision

to blacklist it for a period of two years w.e.f. 16.4.2009, there were no additional circumstances and reasons, on the basis whereof, the Petitioner

firm could be blacklisted for a period more than the one which the Doordarshan had, in its wisdom, fixed vide its earlier order of 16.04.2009,

which was, however, set aside by this Court, finding it to have been issued without complying with the principles of Natural Justice. He further

submitted that the Petitioners would be satisfied in case the blacklisting order was to operate with effect from 16.4.2009.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Doordarshan has not been able to project any rational or reasoning to justify Petitioner blacklisting from the

date of the issue of Directorate General​s order, and rightly so, because no additional facts or circumstances warranting extension of the period of

blacklisting from the one taken at the time when order dated 16.04.2009 was passed, have been indicated in the order, questioned in the Petition.

I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the blacklisting order of the Directorate General, Doordarshan.

The Directorate General, Doordarshan has dealt with the Petitioner firm Response to the show cause notice threadbare, giving sound reasons

for their rejection and in this view of the matter, the decision of the Prasar Bharti to blacklist the Petitioner firm being well reasoned warrants no

interference.

However, no reasons are forthcoming for making the blacklisting order operational from the date of the issue of the order.

The Doordarshan had taken decision in April, 2009 to blacklist the Petitioner firm for a period of two years, for its lapse and in this view of the

matter, in the absence of any further material with the Doordarshan warranting enhanced penalty to the Petitioner firm, its blacklisting for a period

of two years from the date of the issue of the order, sounds arbitrary, for pendency of the proceedings, preceding final orders, would not justify

imposition of higher penalty. This is additionally so because the Petitioners were not, in any way, responsible for the delay in the proceedings,

which were required to be gone into, before inflicting the penalty.

That apart, the Petitioner firm, is reported not to have dealt with the Doordarshan after the submission of its Programme till date, and in this view

of the matter, its blacklisting w.e.f. 15.3.2010 may not be justified, in the circumstances.

For all what has been said above, the Petitioner firms plea for making its blacklisting order operational w.e.f. April 2009, therefore, succeeds and

is accordingly, allowed.

The Prasar Bharti, Directorate General, Doordarshans order F. No. 27/1073/ 2007-P-IV dated 15.03.2010, blacklisting M/S Astra Productions

for a period of two years and banning its dealing with Doordarshan is, therefore, ordered to be effective from 16.04.2009 and not form

15.03.2010 as indicated in the order.