AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is filed for a direction to the first respondent/Doordar-shan Kendra, Hyderabad, to approve and allow the petitioner to produce the Novel "Cheekati Gadulu" in 26 episodes and allot time for telecasting the same, by giving first preference, as his application was the first application, so as to commence it from 8-9-1995 (which happens to be the birthday of the author''Of the novel) without any resort to draw by lottery for allotting time slots.
To appreciate the case of the petitioner, it is necessary to note a few facts of the case:
It is not in dispute that in the month of July, 1991, the first respondent issued a notification inviting proposals from outside Television and Film Producers and qualified professional for consideration for telecasting the tele-films by the first respondent/Doordar-shan Kendra, Hyderabad, under the scheme described as "New Sponsorship Scheme". Such proposals invited pertain to 11 programme ca''tegories:--
(a) Family Serials
(b) Comedy Serials
(c) Serials based on Classics/Novels
(d) Short stories
(e) Detective Serials
(f) Socially-relevant/Environment Serials
(g) Science Fictibn
(h) Historical/Cultural
(i) Quiz Programmes
(j) Children''s interest (Cartoons/Children''s Serials/Animation).
(k) Documentaries.
The said notification inviting proposals state as under:--
"The proposals, received on a particular theme and subject, shall be considered in one lot and Doordarshan shall select from the said lot such proposals as are considered most suitable and in such numbers as are considered necessary to meet their programme requirements."
"No proposal shall normally be approved for more than 13 episodes/programmes. The number of episodes/programmes should, therefore, be clearly mentioned in the pro-psoal."
By the last paragraph, the said Notification stated that such proposals would be received by the first respondent from 1-7-1991 to 31-7-1991.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner sent his proposals. Respondents Nos. 3 to 6, who were impleaded as per the orders dated 22-3-1995 in W.P. M.P. No. 2523/95 of this ''Court, also sent their proposals. The first respondent, out of 1,874 proposals received, 194 sponsored serials were selected provisionally. Thereafter, by letter dated 8-9-1994, the first/''respodnenl informed the petitioner stating that his proposal for T.V. Serial ''Cheekati Gadulu'' has been provisionally selected for 13 episodes under the new sponsorship scheme and each episode shall be of the duration of not more than 22 minutes 30 seconds with free commercial time slot of two minutes and two free credit lines of ten seconds each. The said letter further stated as under:--
"You have to strictly adhere to the approved script and production crew. No change of the scheme of your approved proposal will be permissible."
"You have to produce one episode as pilot episode out of 13 episodes approved to you before 90 days from the date of issuing of this letter. Your proposal will be finally selected for telecast subject to the approval of the above pilot episode. You have to produce a pilot of the programme at your own cost and risk and submit the same to Doprdarshan within a stipulated time of 90 days for placing it before the Selection Committee for''its final approval."
"If the producer fails to submit the Doordarshan the pilot of the programme within the stipulated time of 90 days the provisional approval granted to the proposal shall be deemed to have lapsed automatically. Doordarshan will not send any formal intimation to this effect to the producer."
The said letter further stated that if the above terms and conditions are acceptable to the petitioner, the petitioner should acknowledge the letter to the office of the first respondent on or before 25-9-1994. The petitioner, by its letter dated 24-9-1994 expressed the difficulty to produce the said serial in 13 episodes stating that he made arrangements to picturise the said novel in twenty six episodes. However, he.stated that "without prejudice to the above, I hereby accept your proposal for 13 episodes". The petitioner also submitted a pilot episode of the serial ''Chikati Gadulu'' to the first respondent for approval. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
The first respondent has filed its counter and respondents Nos.2 to 6 have stated their objections in the implead petition, contending that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for in the writ petition.
The first respondent stated that under eleven programme categories, in all 33 proposals were approved under the category of ''classics/novels'' and the Selection Committee approved each proposal for 13 episodes serial. It is further submitted that the petitioner had already accepted the condition imposed by the first respondent vide its letter dated 8-9-1994, in his reply letter dated 24-9-1994 and along with that; he submitted the pilot episode, and in these circumstances, the petitioner could "not have filed this writ petition. Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 also contended that their proposals have been provisionally accepted and they have also submitted their pilot episode. Because of interim order granted by this Court, the entire process has come to a standstill, and, in the cir-cumstances, they are put to great hardship and loss. They stated that they have invested more than 1 1/2 lakhs of rupees and engaged artists, etc. Therefore, they prayed that it would be in the interests of justice to dismiss the writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for in the writ petition. He submitted that ''Chikati Gadulu'' novel is a classical novel written by late Sri T. Gopi-chand and the same runs into 512 pages. It is considered to be one of the classical novels in Telugu literature. Late Gopichand was an eminent literary figure. The said Novelist, who has been awarded Central Sahitya Academy Award, was the son of Kaviraju Tripuraneni Rama Swamy Choudary, a well-known figure in Telugu literary world. The Propietor of the petitioner-firm is the son of the author of the novel in question Sri T. Gopichand and also the grand son of Kaviraju Tripuraneni Ramaswamy Choudary. He is a radio artist, producer, director and actor of the T. V. Serials. The said novel could be produced in 26 episodes and it is very difficult to produce the same in 13 episodes. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the first respondent is unreasonable in imposing such a condition on the petitioner''s serial. He also submitted that the petitioner''s proposal being the first to be received by the first respondent under the category "classic and novels", the petitioner should be given first preference regarding the choice of allotment of time slot for telecasting the film on ''Doordarshan'' and such telecasting should be given commencement from 8-9-1995, which happens to be the birthday of the author of the novel late T. Gopichand. He further contended that the proposed method to be adopted by the first respondent for the allotment of time schedule, by drawing lot Vis highly arbitrary, as such method is not contemplated by any procedure prescribed by the first respondent. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice and equity to allow the writ petition.
On the other hand, Smt. A. Chayadevi, the learned. Standing Counsel for the Central Government, first respondent, contended that the petitioner has accepted the proposals made by the first respondent in their letter dated 8-9-1994. One of the conditions of the said letter was that the acceptance may be communicated to the first respondent only if those terms and conditions are acceptable to the petitioner, and accordingly, by his letter dated 24-9-1994, the petitioner has accepted those terms and conditions that he would produce the serial in 13 episodes, and now, the petitioner cannot take up any stand contrary to his acceptance letter. She further submitted that the selection of any episode for telecasting on Doordarshan is left with the absolute discretion of the Selection Com-mitee of the first respondent. She invited my attention to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 1-10-1990, vide, Proc. No.801/2/88-TV(PII), which provides a procedure for selection of T.V. Serial. She particularly emphasized Paragraphs-5 and 9 of the said proceedings, in order to contend that, the petitioner is bound by these regulations. She also contended that by. the Notification issued in the month of July, 1991 inviting proposals in question, it has been made clear that such proposals would be considered, on the basis of their suitability and in such number that would be necesary to meet the programme requirement on Doordarshan. It is also made clear that such proposal shall not be for a duration of more than 1.3 episodes programme. So far as the allotment of time slot was concerned she submitted that since there is no procedure for allotment of such time slots, the first respondent has been adopting the method of ''drawing lot'' and the same cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal.
The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 have practically adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the first respondent.
On the basis of the above arguments on both sides, the "following points arise for consideration;
Whether the petitioner is entitled to contend that he should be permitted to pro duce the serial in 26 episodes but not in 13 episodes?
Whether the petitioner''s application is entitled to be given first preference under the category of "classics and novels" and whether there should be a direction that the telecasting of serial in question shall be given from 8-9-1995 (which happens to be the birthday of the author of the novel) ?
Whether the method to be adopted by the first respondent for allotment of time slot by drawing a lot is arbitrary ?
The contention of the petitioner, regarding the point No. 1, is that the first respondent has already approved the script submitted by him for 26 episodes and, therefore, their further direction that the entire serial should be produced in 13 episodes would be unjust, because the novel ''Chikati Gadulu'' is running about 512 pages and no justice could be done for the novel, if the petitioner is called upon to reduce the same to 13 episodes. But from the counter filed by the first respondent, it is clear that under the category "classics and novels", 33 serials have been provisionally selected and each serial is of 13 episodes duration only. When unanimously the same condition is imposed on all these provisionally 33 serials selected under that category, the petitioner cannot, make the grievance of the same. Moreover, by the acceptance letter, dated 24-9-1994, the petitioner, though expressing his difficulty, accepted, the provisional order issued by the first respondent dated 8-9-1994 and accordingly, he has agreed to produce the entire novel in 13 episodes. Having accepted the condition imposed by the first respondent, the petitioner is estopped from putting forth the present contention. The Selection Committee of the first respondent consists of experts, artists and literary persons having expertise knowledge in the field. Their discretion that the particular novel could be produced in 13 episodes does not call for interference by this Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Such administrative discretion should necessarily be free, within the sphere of the operation of the executive. However, from the law declared by the Supreme Court from time to time, it is clear that the discretion of the executive is such that there shall be "free paly in the joints".
Having regard to these circumstances, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to claim that he should be permitted to product the serial in 26 episodes as against 13 episodes permitted by the first respondent.
I shall deal with the points Nos. 2 and 3 together. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that if the producers of the programmes were allowed to ask their own timings for telecasting their serials, it would not be possible for first respondent to execute the programmes, because every one may suggest his own timings. Though the author of the novel in question is a great novelist recognised in Telugu literature, the request of the petitioner that telecast-ing of the serial ''Chikati Gadulu'' should start from 8-9-1995, which happens to be the birthday of the author, cannot be accepted. I, think, that there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent. The first respondent has got discretion to adjust the programmes according to the nature and theme of the programme. For instance, a children serial, if telecasted at about 10.30 or 11 p.m. in the night, many of the children would not be able to see it. This one instance I gave to show that the very many factors have got to be considered by Doordarshan while telecasting the serials and programmes and allotting the time slots to them. In these circumstances, no producer can have any right much less a fundamental right to claim that his serial should be given such and such a time. Therefore, this relief of the petitioner that there should be a direction to the first respondent to telecast the serial that the petitioner has produced with effect from 8-9-1995 cannot be granted.
The further contention of the peti-tioner that allotting the time slot on the basis of drawing of lot is arbitrary also cannot be sustained for more than one reason. His contention that his proposal was the first proposal to be received by the first respondent under the category in question and, therefore, it should the given first preference also is not supported by law or ruie, made or framed, in this behalf. The procedure that is prescribed, for selecting the serials by the Selection Committee, as per the Notification, dt. 1-10-1990 of the first respondent, does not! Prescribe any such mode for allotment of the time slot. The notification inviting the proposals for telecasting such serials issued in the month of July, 1991 clearly stated that such proposals were to be received from 1-7-1991 to 31-7-1991. The producers offering their proposals, could send the same on any one of those days from 1-7-1991 to 31-7-1991. Under that notification, a person could as well submit his proposal on the last day. The petitioner has not brought to my notice any condition, in any notification, that the principle "first come -- first served" would be the one to be followed for allotment of the time slot. In fact, as submitted by both the counsel at the bar, there is no such rule. The contention of the petitioner that in the absence of any rule, "first come -- first served "principle has to be inferred as reasonable cannot be accepted. When the rules do not provide such method and when the time is given for submitting the proposals from 1-7-1991 to 31-7-1991, it would not be possible to infer such a principle. Moreover, the principle "first come -- first served" may lead to arbitrariness and also manipulation. As submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent, having regard to these circumstances only, they have adopted the procedure of allotting the time slot on the basis of "draw of lot". But the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this procedure by draw of lot is arbitrary.
But from many of the enactments made by the Parliament and State Legislatures, it is found that such a method of draw of lot is adopted as one of the methods in their legislative wisdom. For instance, the, Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, vide Section 65. provides that when there is equality of vote between the two candidates, the Returning Officer could decide between those two candidates by lot and the candidate on whom the lot falls could be declared erected. Similar principle is also adopted even by the State Legislatures; for instance Section 36 of A.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1994, and Rule 22 (8)(d) of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies. Rules, 1964. Therefore, the method of draw by lot cannot be said to be an unreasonable method. Even in the sports, who should start the game, tossing the coin is one method adopted for taking decision. From these instances, it is clear that the man has taken this method as workable method. Even otherwise, in such matters, the authorities should have a discretion to evolve a method which would be least subject to criticism. Any other method possibly would be liable for attack on one ground or the other either favouritism of official bias, etc. But the method adopted by the first respondent, having regard to the fact that there is no other procedure, cannot be said to be arbitrary, so as to subject it to judicial review. While considering the question of judicial review, with reference to such administrative discretion exercised by the authorities, by reiterating the principles laid down in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M/s. M. & N. Publications Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC 445 : AIR 1993 SCW 683 and Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, , the Surpeme Court in New Horizons Limited and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, held as under :--
"In the recent decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India (supra), this Court has examined the scope of judicial review in the field of, exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies and, after noticing the current mood of judicial restraint in England, the Court has laid down the following principles : (SCC pp. 687-688, para 94) :
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.
(2) The Court does not sit as''a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a re view of the administrative decision is per mitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an ad ministrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facets pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the, administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure."
"Wednesbury principle of reasonableness" to which reference has been made in principle (5) aforementioned is contained in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn. (1948) 1 KB 223. In that case, Lord Greene, M.R. has held that a decision of a public authority will be liable to be quashed or otherwise dealt with by an appropriate order in judicial review proceed-ings where the Court concludes that the decision is such that no authority, properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could have reached it."
In the light of this law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, f am of the opinion that the decision of the first respondent that the petitioner shall produce the, serial, if ultimately selected, within 13 episodes and that the allotment of time slots shall bp done by lot cannot be said, to be unreasonable. Hence, I pass the following order :--
"The writ petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case; without costs."
Petition dismissed.