Judgment:
N.K. Jain, J.
1. In this Public Interest Litigation petition, filed on 27.3.1997, it is alleged that to celebrate 50th Anniversary of India's Independence, the respondent No. 1 sanctioned rupees 25 crores and rupees 1 crores have been distributed to various States. Rupees 1 crores has been provided to Regional Kendra, Jaipur-respondent No. 3 for preparing programmes produced as per the action plan circulated on 4.2.1997. The grievance of the petitioner is that no proper guidelines were framed by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India nor by the Director General, Doordarshan to execute the action plan, and without following existing prescribed procedure of preparing any panel of Directors, Artists, Writers and track record, the respondents have selected their own persons without any basis who have no knowledge and required experience in the field of telecasting such programmes and production. The respondents distributed the Government funds so allotted in the garb of getting programmes executed through persons of their choice on extraneous consideration. It is alleged that no proposals were invited through advertisement in news-papers or otherwise and, therefore, necessary directions may be issued for making fresh panel. It is also alleged that since public exchequer has been misused, it needs investigation and suitable action and, therefore, orders therefor may be issued. He has relived on 1996 (6) SCC 530 and AIR 1989 SC page 157.
2. The respondents have filed one common reply in response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, alongwith the affidavit of Smt. Vimla Mittal, Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Jaipur. It is stated that decision making is a collective process involving different level of the staff members and the Director of the Regional Kendras. The scheme of empanelment started in 1994 has been abandoned as per the information of the respondent No. 2 and, since no scheme was in existence, the question of publishing principles or guidelines for selection or empanelment does not arise. It is also stated that maximum opportunities have been given to all and the respondent No. 3 is not functioning arbitrarily. It is stated that the petitioner has no right to comment upon the functioning of the respondent No. 3 in any manner and no case of infringement of provisions of Articles 14, 21, 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India is made out by the respondents and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. Reliance has been placed on 1996 (6) SCC 584.
3. Rejoinder to this reply has been filed by the petitioner.
4. The case come up before me on 23.7.1997 and, as no guidelines were filed in compliance of the order dated 28.3.1997, the respondents were directed to get the relevant record produced. The record could not be produced for one reason or the other. On 8.8.1997, Dy. Director, Doordarshan was present in court and he submitted that 15 episodes are ready and 10 episodes are in the process of being complete. The programme was to stall from 11.8.1997; between 8.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. and, thereafter, on 18th and 25th August and 1st, 8th and 15th September, 1997 and so forth, However, it was submitted that programmes scheduled for telecast at different centres have not been finalised and pending before the Doordarshan Directorate, Delhi. The learned Counsel for the Union of India stated that inspite of his best efforts he could not get the required record from the concerned authorities. The case was adjourned to 13.8.1997 and, as agreed, it was directed that the respondents shall not telecast programmes after 11.8.1997 till further orders and further they shall not pay any further amount to the producers. On 13.8.1997, the record was not produced. Shri Rathore submitted that guidelines for consideration, processing and approval of proposals received from out side producers for telecasting programmes issued by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting issued on 7.5.1993 are applicable for telecasting programmes for 50th Anniversary of India's Independence except empanelment. However, he wanted time to file list of evaluation and costing committees, respective expenses of the episodes, guidelines and the relevant record. The case was adjourned to 14.8.1997, on which date Mrs. Vimla Mittal submitted that different guidelines have been issued for telecasting programmes on the said occasion but despite her best efforts the record has not been obtained from the office of the DG, Doordarshan, On request, case was adjourned to 29.8.1997. On 29.8.1997, Shri K.S. Rathore filed two documents; letter dated 9.11.1993 and6.1.1994 in pursuance of the order dated 14.8.1997. on that date, three officers of Doordarshan were also present and prayed for time to file documents to substantiate the stand taken by the respondents. Though, the chronology of events (pages 1 to 130) were filed by Shri K.S. Rathore on 11.8.1997. The case adjourned to 1.9.1997.
5. The respondents No. 1 and 2 filed additional affidavit alongwith documents Annex. 1 to 8 on 1.9.1997. Shri Rajendra Prasad also filed additional affidavit of the petitioner on 1.9.1997.
6. Meanwhile, application for permission to intervene in the matter has been filed by one Vivekanand Mishra through Shri P.K. Sharrna, Advocate and copies there of was supplied to other party. On considering the application, the applicant was allowed to intervene in the matter. The application has also supported the case of the petitioner.
7. The learned Counsel for the respondents have raised preliminary objections about the maintainability of this PIL. It is submitted that this petition is not maintainable as personal grievance cannot be allowed to be raised through PIL. It is also submitted that disputed questions of fact have been raised in this petition which cannot be gone into by this Court. Further judicial review cannot be entertained as this Court, while exercising powers vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only confines to correctness and not to go into merits.
8. On merits, it has been submitted that being creative work, Doordarshan cannot be treated as a consumer, product or commodity. It was not felt necessary by the respondents to invite application from various persons through advertisement. However, equal opportunity was given to all concerned. Applications received upto 3.3.1997 were considered. A panel was duly selected by the Regional committee in House Committee meeting, and has been approved by the DG, Doordarshan New Delhi which was within their competence and authority. It is submitted that reasons are not necessary to be communicated if the application is not considered and the reasons are only required to be communicated in case of rejection. It is submitted that petitioner submitted his application on 20.3.1997 and, as such, could not be considered and proposals received upto 3.3.1997 were considered.
9. In reply to this, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged script was not accompanied with the respective applications and the applications were not having any date. It is stated that the application of Tads Communication was made on 20.2.1996 which is in anticipation of the action plan and M/s Insight Vision submitted script with reference to letter of the respondents dated 15.3.1997, whereas, proposals were approved on 5.3.1997. It is stated that some of the firms used common productions showing their independent experience. Some of the firms have not disclosed their existence, status and place and about their previous works, qualification and experience, the details thereof have been mentioned in para 12 of the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner. It is also alleged that names of 15 alleged eminent producers were sent on 4.2.1997 and vide letter dated 12.2.1997 (Annex.3) Dy. Director General asked to bring the list of producers and come prepared with the queries to get the proposals clarified. Vide letter dated 27.2.1997, respondent No. 3 was also asked to first discuss as per the proforma attached. On this basis the Regional Committee has to consider, but without proper appreciation, discussion and scruitiny proposals were passed in its meeting dated 3.3.1997. It is also submitted that no order of cancellation of the scheme of empanelment stalled in 1994 has been filed and it has been submitted that arguments advanced by the respondents is only to avoid the necessity to invite public by issuing advertisement to give opportunity to concerned persons. He submitted that if scheme of empanelment was abondoned, as suggested, it is just to help their own persons and to get the money distributed for the work. It is also argued that for creative work also, the applications could have been invited through advertisement so that cases of other eminent persons having qualification, experience and good track record could have also been considered. It is argued that the respondents have deliberately not invited applications by public notice and have changed their stand only to justify that they have not followed the guidelines dated 7.5.1993 that empanelment scheme has been abondoned without placing the order issued in this regard. As stated above, the alleged order dated 9.11.1993 cannot be read that the scheme was abondoned, but, at the most, it can be gathered that the DG, Doordarshan has been authorised to form committees which are necessary as per his opinion. No order has been produced by the respondents constituting evaluation committee or costing committee so also no order constituting panel of co-opted experts by any of the respondents has been produced. Therefore, any consideration made by the Regional Director alongwith co-opted experts is of no consequence. It is submitted that action plan cannot be termed as the norms and conditions. Track record of the producers/directors etc. with co-opted experts of the concerned subject duly appointed has not been considered and mere mentioning the word 'scruitinised' is not sufficient unless it reveals from the record that the script and the proposals of others have been properly evaluated and considered. It is further submitted that five officers and five co-opted experts sat together in the In House committee meeting and decided the matter, which could not have been done. The respondents have approved the proposals of their own persons without even considering their script, authenticity and correctness of the programmes as per authority to give benefit by misusing public fund in the garb of this celebration. As already stated, the respondents have not short listed the proposals as per letter of the respondents before sending it initially but added 22 more persons making it 37 without explaining as to how 37 proposals including of the applicant out side the State of Rajasthan reached Doordarshan Kendra, Jaipur when not officially invited to increase alleged list of 15 persons of national and international level which means it is just to give chance at higher level by reducing applications through rejection that too without disclosing any reasons. The approval of 22 proposals out of 37 in the meeting held on 5.3.1997 by mentioning the words The following proposals pertaining to Doordarshan Kendra, Jaipur have been considered and approved' cannot be said to be approved by proper scruitiny so also the alleged endorsement of Hon'ble Minister when the members of the evaluation committee and costing committee have not put their signatures on Annex. VII and it only bears the signatures of three persons and the mentioning of names of the Chairman and members of the Costing Committee in another Annex. V-A without their signatures as shown in Annex.VII is of no consequence. It is argued that that though it is not necessary to communicate to the concerned persons the reasons but the reasons should have been recorded for approval/disapproval of their own justification as the record reveals that the respondents have not produced or placed any document of such 15 persons whose applications were rejected to satisfy the court. Therefore, the argument that since the applicants whose applications were rejected are not before the court and petitioner cannot take benefit of this argument, Counsel submits that the entire conduct and the material facts clearly show that it is not the case of mere irregularity but gross manipulation on the part of the authorities so this Court can certainly take cognizance of the fact that while considering such applications, fairness in distribution of government money in the garb of this celebration has been violated. The counsel also submits that the conduct of the respondents of paying 80% of the amount in advance in haste when the programmes are to be telecast from 8.8.1997 to 9.8.1998 in 52 episodes and taking different stands in the court shows that they still want to help their own persons through court also. In reply to the argument of preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of disputed questions of fact, Shri Sharma has submitted that he only argued and arrived at the conclusion on the basis of the material produced by the respondents so the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that this Court is considering disputed questions of fact. It is also submitted that 936 episodes were short listed within a short period by the respondents which is not practicable and reliable that they are as per desired script, theme and action plan, so the approval is not sustainable in the eye of law. Number of other irregularities have also been pointed out as mentioned in additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 1.9.1997.
10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material and gone through the case law.
11. Since I am not inclined to go into the factual aspects, it is not necessary to deal with them but as both the parties have vehemently argued their respective submissions, I have narrated them as above.
12. Considering legal aspect, it is not necessary to deal with the case law as the legal position is well settled. One cannot be allowed to misuse the forum for the sake of his own benefit and publicity only. The court is to ensure that process of it is not abused. If the court is satisfied that the rule of law has not been followed, it can always interfere, whosoever higher authority it might be, on complaint so made as no body is above the law. It is also well settled that while acting within guidelines the authority cannot enjoy absolute discretion to pick and choose in arbitrary and discriminatory manner, and exercise of discretion showing preference objective criteria must be transparent, just & fair and not arbitrary. It is also well settled that before exercising discretion in disposing and utilizing public funds one should maintain public accountability, failing which, the person concerned would be liable for criminal breach of trust. It is also well settled that mere allegations of mala fide have no bearing unless they are supported by factual aspects and proof.
13. Undoubtedly, Regional Centre, Doordarshan, Jaipur is engaged in promoting the educational, cultural and artistic work in the interest of the public of Rajasthan.
14. So far as argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents that this PIL is not maintainable as petitioner has raised his personal grievance, is concerned clear and transparent from the initial stage to the end as lack of transparency in any system gives rise to the nepotism and arbitratiness. It was argued that earlier scheme of empanelment has been abandoned without placing cancellation order, though procedure of old guidelines was followed. Now this Court is to see whether the procedure as per guidelines have been followed or not ?
15. Keeping in view all the facts available on record, the case law on the point, the fact that proposals were not invited from out side producers/directors/artists etc. through publication and proposals of 22 alleged eminent applicants have been approved, for auspicious occasion of celebration of 50th Year of India's Independence, without finding out correctness, genuineness and authenticity of the script, theme and episodes, which will be matter of record for all times to come, has not been verified, under these circumstances, the proposals approved/selected cannot be sustainable and it needs investigation to find out correctness of the things in order as per guidelines.
16. The programmes to be telecast on TV while celebrating 50th Year of India's Independence are not like a film or serial on the basis of imagination only, resemblence with dead or alive, but projecting sacrifice and dedicated work to public at large and will be matter of record so unless its correctness, authenticity and genuineness is verified from all other aspects by a constituted committee, it cannot be allowed to be exhibited as per the scheduled programmes. As this Court was not prima facie satisfied with the action of the respondents, as agreed, the telecast of the programmes were already stayed vide order dated 8.8.1997 and the respondents were directed not to pay further amount to out side producers or directors. The said order will continue till the decision of the proposed enquiry.
17. As already stated, the programmes to be telecast weekly with 52 episodes are not merely regular programmes of ordinary nature, but substantial government exchequer is involved in the matter. Under these circumstances, thorough and proper enquiry is necessary so as to repose confidence of general public also that applications have been selected and distribution of money by the concerned authority has been done in a right manner. Therefore, I direct the Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi to consider the matter in all respects and as per allegations made and hold enquiry with the help of one member, Ministry of Finance (Audit Branch), one member of the Film Advisory Board and one expert on the subject, to be nominated by him and complete the same as early as possible and preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order according to law. If on enquiry it is found that every thing is in order, the authorities are free to adjust, reschedule telecast of the programmes which could not be done due to interim order of this Court, otherwise, the Government is free to take appropriate action against the officers/persons concerned found responsible including recovery of amount so disbursed to the outside producers for preparing each episode. The authorities are free to invite {applications for telecasting programmes as per action plan afresh in accordance with the guidelines. It is hoped and expected that the Secretary will hold the enquiry in a fair and reasonable manner in scheduled time.
18. With above directions and observations, this PIL petition is disposed of.
19. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi for information and necessary action.
20. A copy of this order be also sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat building, Jaipur for information.