Permod Kohli, J.
1. Based upon common questions of law and facts involved in these petitions, all the petitions were heard and are taken up for disposal by common order.
2. The petitioners in all these petitions claim to be Producers of the Tele-Films and have expertise in the Bhaderwahi Dilect being locals belonging to the said area namely, Bhadra-Desh. They also claimed to be fully acquainted with the area, its history, culture, dialogue, topography and local languages of various regions.
3. Government of India took a decision to start 'Kashir Channel' from the J&K; State with a view not only to provide entertainment but also promote the cultural heritage of the people belonging to different regions having different languages'/ dilects and also to educate the people about the different areas of the State. Certain guidelines were issued in this regard by Trasar Bharti', for consideration, processing and approval of commissioned programmes for telecast on Door Darshan Channels. All the petitioners submitted their proposals for Telecast of various programmes on the Kashir Channel to the official respondents for their consideration, evaluation and approval.
4. In OWP No. 297 2003 and OWP No. 1150/ 2002 the petitioners submitted their proposals in Bhaderwahi-Dialect. The proposals of the petitioners in OWP No. 29/ 03 came to be rejected vide communication No. 9/12/ 2002-KC dated 15-11-2002, in OWP No. 312/ 02 the proposal was rejected vide communication No. 9/15/2002-KC dated 15-11-2002. In OWP No. 1034/ 02 the proposal of the petitioner was in Pahari language/ dialect, which has not been accepted.
5. The petitioners are aggrieved of non-approval of their proposal and also the approval of the proposals of the private respondents. They accordingly seek the quashment of rejection letters in respect to their proposals and further seek the quashment of the approvals granted to the programmes of the private respondents besides a direction is also sought in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to approve the proposals of the petitioner for being telecast on the 'Kashir' channel. The directions are sought on the following grounds:-
(i) the proposals of the private respondents were not in Bhaderwahi/Pahari Dialects as was the requirement of the notice inviting proposals;
(ii) the petitioners being locals belonging to the concerned area have knowledge of the history, culture and topography of the area, whereas the private respondents whose programmes have been approved are strangers.
(iii) that under the guide-lines and various directions of the court in different writ petitions the local artists and talent is to be preferred;
(iv) the evaluation has not been made by the respondents in accordance with the guide-lines formulated by Prasar Bharti. Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to Notice Inviting proposals issued by Prasar Bharti, which contained the following:
'Proposals are being invited under commissioned category of Kashmir package for fiction and non-fiction programmes in the following dialect.
Bhaderwahi (Dialect).
Each Proposal should contain an Bank Draft of Rs. 10, 000 drawn in favour of PBBCI, Directorate General Doordarshan. The proposals should also contain the Biodata of the producer, Director, Writer and Cameraman obtaining details of the programmes produced by them for different Television Channels. Department/ Ministries, Ad agencies, Films etc. the claim of production details should contain required proof in terms of work order given by different channels. Departments, Ministries etc proposals should contain the synopsis of each of the episode, storyline, script of the first episode, treatment screenplay.'
6. Based upon the afore-said Notification it is stated that the proposals of the petitioners were in Bhaderwahi Dialect, whereas the proposals of the private respondents were in English and therefore, their proposals were contrary to the notice inviting proposals. It did not satisfy its requirement and the acceptance of such proposal is contrary to the policy of the Government of India. The object of including Bhaderwahi dialect in the list of languages sought to be promoted through Kashir Channel is frustrated. It is further stated that the respondents could not have appreciated the proposals of the private respondents as the same did not satisfy the requirement being not in Bhaderwahi dialect.
7. In OWP No. 1150/2002 petitioner submitted proposal for the production of the serial/ musical programme titled 'Geetroo' for Kashir Channel in Pahari language/ dialect. Same was approved by the Evaluation Committee and examined by the cost committee on 25-6-2002. It is alleged that though the petitioner agreed for the cost of production as proposed by the Cost Committee, however, the proposal was not considered and the petitioner had to approach the Court and filed OWP No. 951/02 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 28-10-2002, wherein the following directions were issued:
'Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the communication annexure 'G' no further decision has been taken in the matter. It is further submitted that decision was supposed to be taken as per the Guidelines for 'consideration, processing and approval commissioned Programmes for telecast on Doordarshan Channels. Reliance in this behalf is particularly placed on Annexure 'E'.
xxxxxxxxxx
8. This petition is admitted and disposed of with the direction that the respondents shall consider the claim of the petitioner and take appropriate decision within a period of three weeks, from the date copy of this order, alongwith copy of the writ petition and its annexures is made available to them and to the learned counsel who has put in his appearance on their behalf.'
9. It is alleged that copy of this order was duly communicated to the respondents. However, without placing the proposal for consideration before the cost committee and without evaluation the proposal of the petitioner was rejected vide communication No. 9/152002-KC dated 15-11-2002. Petitioner further stated that the petitioner has sufficient experience of TV Production. However, the proposal has been rejected on baseless grounds. The rejection is also not only contrary to the directions issued in OWP No. 951/2000 & OWP No. 887/2002, but also the guidelines framed by the respondents in this regard. Accordingly the rejection order dated 15-11-2002 is challenged.
10. I have perused the rejection order whereby the proposal of 'Geetru' submitted by the petitioner was rejected at the level of Joint Selection-cum-Casting Committee on the following grounds:
1. You have no experience of Production of Programmes;
2. You could not explain your project orally.
3. You made a statement before the Committee that you have worked only as a part time correspondent at Radio Kashmir, Jammu; and
4. You could not explain anything about your project and your experience of production of Programmes for television.'
11. In the objections filed to this petition, respondents have reiterated the grounds communicated in the rejection letter. It is stated that the petitioners proposal was placed before the evaluation committee, pursuant to the direction passed in OWP No. 951/2000 and on consideration same was found to be without merit. It is stated that the petitioner mis-presented his proposal before the Joint Selection Committee-cum-costing Committee of 25-6-2002. Respondents also stated that as per the policy the targeted audience of the Kashmir Channel is multi-lingual and multi-cultural across both sides of line of control, with varied tastes and aspirations. These programmes are required to be made and broadcast in Kashmiri, Dogri, Gojri, Pahari, Urdu, Balti, Shina, Bhaderwahi etc.
12. Relying upon Rule 25 of the General Guide-lines, it is stated that the proposal from producers belonging to North-East/Kashir are required to be given due weightage vis-'-vis the applicants while commissioning of programmes for Jammu and Kashmir and North-East. Rule 25 of the Guidelines is taken note of-
'Commissioning of programmes for North-East and Kashir Channels.
Proposals from Producers belonging to North-East/ Kashir will be given due weightage vis-a-vis other applicants while commissioning of programmes for J&K; and North-East. Producers claiming the weightage will have to enclose definite and clear documentary proof of their residence alongwith their proposals.'
13. In addition to above, it is stated that the High Court in its judgment dated 31-12-2000 passed in OWP No. 319/2001 and other connected matters has observed as under:
'That the respondent Union of India would take notice of the policy decision taken by it and create an infrastructure in the State of Jammu and Kashmir so that the purpose behind it that is to generate employment and also to encourage the local talent is achieved; which purpose can be achieved by giving the programmes to the companies who have their routes in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.'
14. It is accordingly submitted that the approval granted in favour of the private respondents is in gross violation to the guide-lines as all the companies are out-siders and they have no infra-structure in the State of Jammu and Kashmir nor they are fully acquainted with its historical, and cultural background. Various decisions of the respondents to reject the proposals of the petitioners and acceptance of those of the private respondents have also been assailed being violative of the guidelines. It is vehemently argued that the proposals of the petitioners were examined by the evaluation committee which cleared the same. However, the joint selection cum-casting committee has rejected their proposals. In case of Chint Purni Films v. Union of India (OWP No. 1150/2002) the proposal was however rejected by the Evaluation Committee itself. The sum and substance of the petitioner's grievance is that the costing committee is only concerned with the Budgetary limits and has nothing to do with the evaluation of the quality of the programmes. It is only the evaluation committee which is required to deal with the evaluation of the programmes.
15. Relevant rules of the General Guidelines and the Specific Guidelines for the Kashir Channel as notified vide No. 9/5/2K/KC are noticed hereunder:
'6. The proposals for commissioning are required to be submitted in two parts, one relating to the script, the content, the concept, etc. at least for four episodes if it is a serial programme of 13 episodes or one episode if it is a non serial programme. The second part would consist of the cost of the production as envisaged by the applicant containing the full details of budget break up at pre-production, production and post production stages and will be taken up for examination only after the acceptance of the first part containing the script, the concept, the content etc. These two parts shall be submitted in separate sealed covers within another sealed cover. The proposal for commissioned programmes could be for a minimum of 13 episodes or appropriate number of episodes decided by mutual agreement.
20. Proposals containing all the relevant details for commissioning will be processed by Doordarshan in two stages:
(i) Evaluation
(ii) Costing.
21. The Evaluation Committee at the headquarters will comprise:
a. Addl. Director General/Deputy Director General of concerned channel convener;
b. Deputy Director General (Sales and Marketing)
c. Addl Director General/Deputy Director General of other Channels;
d. Director of Programme (Central commissioning Unit)
e. Director of Programme of concerned channel;
f. Three outside experts (at least one would be a lady) of repute from the fields of production, performing arts, broadcasting, journalism and literature. These outside experts are to be invited by rotation keeping in view their availability from a panel of fifteen persons to be nominated by a committee consisting of CEO, Member (Finance) and DG Doordarshan,. Out of three outside experts, not more than one should be an ex-DD/AIR employee
At the Regional Kendras the Evaluation Committee will consist of:
(a) Chief Producer;
(b) Deputy Director (Programmes) Executive Producer;
(c) Station Engineer;
(d) Programme Officer in charge of commissioning;
(e) Programme Officer in charge of the subject;
(f) Three outside experts (at least one would be a lady) of repute from the fields of production, performing arts, broadcasting, journalism and literature. These outside experts to be invited on rotation keeping in view their availability from a panel of fifteen persons to be nominated by the Zonal DDG on the recommendation of the Director of the Kendra. Out of three outside experts, not more than one should be an ex-DD/AIR employee.
(iii) Minimum quorum for the meeting excluding non official members would be three.
22. The Evaluation Committee both at Headquarters and Kendras will:
a. Assess and evaluate the merits of the proposal in relation to the channel specific as well as general requirements of Doordarshan;
b. Decide the number of episodes to be commissioned in case of serials;
c. Evaluate the proposal on the basis of a marking scheme and a minimum benchmark;
d. Will ensure that at a given point of time, the Producer/Director does not get more than two programmes, or more than 26 episodes;
e. Prescribe the time frame for the completion of the programme;
f. Indicate briefly the reasons for rejecting the proposal.
23. The proposals shortlisted by the Evaluation Committee shall be put up to a costing committee whose composition at headquarters and kendras is given as follows:-
a. Addl Director General/Dy Director of concerned channel Convener;
b. Deputy Director General (Sales and Marketing)
c. Dy Director General (Finance)
d. Director of Programmes (Central Commissioning Unit: CCU)
e. Director of Programmes of concerned channel/section;
f. Director (CommerciaD/CP (Marketing)
The Costing Committee at the Regional Kendras will consist of-
a. Director,
b. Chief Producer;
c. Supdt Engineer/Station Engineer;
d. Executive Producer/Dy./ Director Programmes (in charge of commissioning);
e. DDA (Finance and Admn), Sr. Admn Officer.
24. The decision taken by the Costing Committee shall be final and its sanction or otherwise will be communicated to the Producer within five working days of the meeting, by the Director of Programmes/Station Directors of concerned channel/station.'
16. Some of the petitioners in these petitions and some other local producers had earlier approached this Court. Some of the directions issued in various writ petitions have been noticed above. In PIL No. 1032/01 a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 26-12-2001 on consideration of the issue of inclusion of Bhaderwahi dialect issued following directions:
'It is also seated by counsel of both the sides that selection process is going on and the decision would be taken in this regard in the month of January, 2002. This being the position, we are of the view that instead of keeping this PIL pending, such petition can be disposed of at this stage with a direction to respondents to consider also the inclusion of Bhaderwahi dialect in Kashmir Cannel for limited purpose. The respondents-authority shall do the needful by issuing corrigendum notifying that the Bhaderwahi dialect are also to be included in the consideration. Of-course, such consideration shall be done strictly on the basis of need keeping in view the Geographical topography and location of the people in far flung and militancy affected area.'
17. It was pursuant to the direction issued in the afore-said writ petition that the notice inviting proposals came to be issued by the Prasar Bharti whereby the earlier Notification dated 28-9-2001. was amended to incorporate Bhaderwahi language also and the proposals invited for the said dialect.
18. As far as the grounds of challenge noticed above are concerned, the respondents in their reply have specifically stated that it is not necessary that the expert should know all the languages with a view to appreciate the proposals/ programmes. In most of the cases, it has been stated that the directions of the Court were duly taken note of and fresh consideration was granted to the proposal of the petitioner in the light of the directions. In view of the allegations of the petitioners that they were not provided an opportunity to explain, direction was issued for production of the record. From the record, it appears that the representatives of M/s Bhaderwah Films; M/s Kablas Films; M/s R.C Production; and K. Manhas Productions did appear before the Screening-cum-costing committee. Regarding the credentials of the private respondents, the respondents have produced the details of various programmes prepared and telecast by them on various TV Channels including DD-I, DD-II, DD National, Kashir Chennel; Jaipur Doordarshan etc.
19. It appears from the guide-lines referred to above that the proposals were required to be submitted in two parts (a) Script, contents, concept etc and (b) cast for production of the programmes. These programmes are examined by two experts committees viz (i) Evaluation Committee and (ii) Costing Committee.
20. From the reply, it appears that the respondents have constituted a comprehensive Joint Evaluation-cum-Costing Committee. It is specific case of the respondents that the Committees are required to consider the projects/ proposals on the basis of contents, format, presentation, synopsis, visual treatment, the power of script etc.
21. It has to be borne in mind that the programmes to be telecast on visual media are required to achieve professional excellence and obtain the widest possible audience. Therefore, concept, contents, acting, presentation, music all are relevant factors which have to be weighed for selecting any programme. This is the job of experts in the field. As far the Courts are concerned they cannot examine the correctness of the decision of an expert body, particularly in the field of skill, talent and technology, therefore, the scope and power of judicial review of the decisions of such experts committees/ bodies is very very limited. In exercise of judicial review the Court can only examine the manner of exercise of power. The Court has neither expertise nor it may have adequate knowledge in such a field to find out the correctness or otherwise of the decisions of the Committees. It is for this purpose that the guide-lines formulated itself envisage the assessment of the programmes by the experts committees. There is no allegation of malaf-ide against all or any member of the committee. The petitioners have also not brought on record anything either in the pleadings or by way of any other material to show that the committee acted in any un-warranted manner to provide a valid base for interference by the writ Court in exercise of its power of Judicial review.
22. Regarding power of judicial review in such matters, the Supreme Court in case Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Ors., : AIR1999SC393 while examining the validity of decision by a public body or State, observed as under:-
'The award of contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision, considerations which are of paramount importance are commercial considerations. These would be-
(1) the price at which the other side is willing to do the work;
(2) Whether the goods or services offered are of the requisite specifications;
(3) Whether the person tendering has the ability to deliver the goods or service as per specifications. When large works contracts involving engagement of substantial manpower or requiring specific skills are to be offered, the financial ability
of the tenderer to fulfill the requirements of the job is also important;
(4) The ability of the tenderer to deliver goods or services or to do the work of the requisite standard and quality;
(5) Past experience of the tenderer and whether he has successfully completed similar work earlier.
(6) Time which will be taken to deliver the goods or services and often.
(7) The ability of the tenderer to take follow up action, rectify defects or to give post contract services.
Even when the State or a public body enters into a commercial transaction, considerations which would prevail in its decision to award the contract to a given party would be the same. However, because the State or a public boxy or an agency of the State enters into such a contract, there could be, in a given case, an element of public law or public interest involved even in such a commercial transition.
10. What are these elements of public interest? (1) Public money would be expended for the purpose of the contract, (2) The goods or services which are being commissioned could be for a public purpose, such as construction of roads, public buildings, power plants or other public utilities. (3) The public would be directly interested in the timely fulfillment of the contract so that the services become available to the public expeditiously. (4) The public would also be interested in the quality of the work undertaken or goods supplied by the tenderer. Poor quality of work or goods can lead to tremendous public hardship and substantial financial outlay either in correcting mistakes or in rectifying defects or even at times in redoing the entire work- thus involving larger outlays or public money and delaying the availability of services, facilities or goods, e.g. a delay in commissioning a power project, as in the present case, could lead to power shortages, retardation of industrial development, hardship to the general public and substantial cost escalation.
11. When a writ petition is filed in the High Court challenging the award of a contract by a public authority or the State, the Court must be satisfied that there is some element of public interest involved in entertaining such a petition. If for example, the dispute is purely between of public interest involved in the litigation. A mere difference in the prices offered by the two tenderers may or may not be decisive in deciding whether any public interest is involved in intervening in such a commercial transaction. It is important to bear in mind that by Court intervention, the proposed project may be considerably delayed thus escalating the cost far more than any saving which the court would ultimately effect in public money by deciding the dispute in favour of one tenderer or the other tenderer. Therefore, unless the Court is satisfied that there is a substantial amount of public interest, or the transaction is entered into malafide, the court should not intervene under Article 226 in disputes between two rival tenderers.
23. Applying the ratio of the afore-stated decision and the fact that the very object of the programmes to be telecast on Kashir Channel or for that matter any other visual media, the consideration that have to be taken note of have been provided in the guide-lines and are to be examined by the experts in the field. In so far as the question of involving local talent and providing a valid base for promoting local language/ dialect, heritage, culture and history etc it depends upon the nature of programme, its presentation etc. The object can be achieved not only by involving local producers but also by local talent who can contribute in different manners by acting in the programmes, providing music, writing scripts and providing consultancy etc. This Court in exercise of power of judicial review is unable to examine all these matters and thus no interference is warranted in the field of the experts'. Though this Court has declined to interfere, however, it is observed that the concerned committees should take into consideration that the local producers should be provided sufficient opportunities to demonstrate their talent, expertise etc and. un-less they are provided an opportunity they may not be in a position to show their worth. Therefore, they should be suitably accommodated.