Kaushik Chakraborty Vs. Director General Doordarshan and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution of india - article 226--direction for telecast of manipuri feature film--participation certificate cannot be transformed into state film award which is given on the decision of the jury--no right of telecast can be claimed. - - the application form appearing at page 26 of the paper book, mentions award of 'best producer 1994' and 'best art director 1994'.it appears that the respondents, based on the above representation accepted the proposal for telecasting the film and accorded the sanction of rs. 'best art director' the royalty amount was reduced rs. he submits that the film was the recipient not only of the 'best art director' award, but also of a 'participation award'.the submission is that the 'participation award' is duly recognised by the state government as a state award. 4. learned counsel further submits that a person no other than the chief minister of manipur recognising the delicate state of the film industry in the state and need for its encouragement had written to the central government requesting that the said participation award be treated as a 'state film award'.reference is invited to correspondence with manipur film development corporation wherein in particular letter dated 14.6.1995, the award for best art direction and another award or certificate of participation are mentioned. the petitioner, he submits, was fully conscious of the fact that the film had won only one state award, yet he represented that the film had won not only the 'best art director' award, but also the 'best producer' award. 1994 that the film had won an award for best art director and not any other award as per the verdict of the jury for the feature and non-feature films for nomination of awards. accordingly the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction of this court.ordermanmohan sarin, j.1. rule. with the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal as the pleadings are complete. petitioner by this writ petition seeks the quashing of the sanction letter bearing no. 4/84/96-ps-/751 dated 15.10.1997, by which sanction was accorded for payment of royalty of rs. 4 lacs for the telecasting rights of the petitioner's manipuri feature film ' langlen thadoi'. petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to make the payment in accordance with the earlier sanction letter bearing no. 4/84/96-ps/310 dated 15.4.1997 in the sum of rs. 8 lacs. 2. the controversy in the present case is narrow one. petitioner had applied to the doordarshan for telecasting the feature film 'langlen thadoi' on the doordarshan. petitioner represented that the said film had won two state awards. the application form appearing at page 26 of the paper book, mentions award of 'best producer 1994' and 'best art director 1994'. it appears that the respondents, based on the above representation accepted the proposal for telecasting the film and accorded the sanction of rs. 8. lacshowever, the respondents state that when they came to know that petitioner's film was the recipient of only one state award i.e. 'best art director' the royalty amount was reduced rs. 4 lacs in terms of the sanction letters bearing no. 4/84/96-ps/751 dated 15.10.1997 and 4/84/96-ps/310 dated 15.4.1997. 3. learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and contrary to the opinion of state government that the film had won two awards. he submits that the film was the recipient not only of the 'best art director' award, but also of a 'participation award'. the submission is that the 'participation award' is duly recognised by the state government as a state award. hence it has to be reckoned and accepted by the respondents for the purpose of making the payment of the entire royalty amount, of rs. 8 lacs. 4. learned counsel further submits that a person no other than the chief minister of manipur recognising the delicate state of the film industry in the state and need for its encouragement had written to the central government requesting that the said participation award be treated as a 'state film award'. reference is invited to correspondence with manipur film development corporation wherein in particular letter dated 14.6.1995, the award for best art direction and another award or certificate of participation are mentioned. 5. mr. neeraj kaul, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 on the other hand submits that the court ought not to entertain this writ petition, which had it genesis and origin in a false representation at the very thresh-hold. the petitioner, he submits, was fully conscious of the fact that the film had won only one state award, yet he represented that the film had won not only the 'best art director' award, but also the 'best producer' award. secondly, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that respondent had sought clarification from manipur film development corporation. the corporation has clarified as late as 8th april. 1994 that the film had won an award for best art director and not any other award as per the verdict of the jury for the feature and non-feature films for nomination of awards. 6. learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to urge that the said belated clarification was from an accounts officer. however, a perusal of the letter shows that the letter is authored by the director. (accounts) government of manipur and in charge managing director, manipur film development corporation. moreover, on a query put by the court as to whether all the film entries for festival were awarded participation certificate, the answer candidly given by both the counsels is in the affirmative. counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that every producer was given the participation award. this is an important rather a determinate after in understanding the true nature of what is in form labelled as 'participation award'.7. in this view of the matter, prima facie, it would appear that a participation certificate, even though in the form of a participation award, cannot be transformed into a state film award, which is selectively given on the decision of the jury. accordingly the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction of this court. the petition is without merit and, thereforee, dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal as the pleadings are complete.

Petitioner by this writ petition seeks the quashing of the sanction letter bearing No. 4/84/96-Ps-/751 dated 15.10.1997, by which sanction was accorded for payment of royalty of Rs. 4 lacs for the telecasting rights of the petitioner's Manipuri feature film ' LANGLEN THADOI'. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to make the payment in accordance with the earlier sanction letter bearing No. 4/84/96-Ps/310 dated 15.4.1997 in the sum of Rs. 8 lacs.

2. The controversy in the present case is narrow one. Petitioner had applied to the Doordarshan for telecasting the feature film 'LANGLEN THADOI' on the Doordarshan. Petitioner represented that the said film had won two State Awards. The application form appearing at page 26 of the paper book, mentions award of 'Best Producer 1994' and 'Best Art Director 1994'. It appears that the respondents, based on the above representation accepted the proposal for telecasting the film and accorded the sanction of Rs. 8. lacsHowever, the respondents state that when they came to know that petitioner's film was the recipient of only one State Award i.e. 'Best Art Director' the royalty amount was reduced Rs. 4 lacs in terms of the sanction letters bearing No. 4/84/96-Ps/751 dated 15.10.1997 and 4/84/96-Ps/310 dated 15.4.1997.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and contrary to the opinion of State Government that the film had won two awards. He submits that the film was the recipient not only of the 'Best Art Director' award, but also of a 'Participation Award'. The submission is that the 'Participation Award' is duly recognised by the State Government as a State Award. Hence it has to be reckoned and accepted by the respondents for the purpose of making the payment of the entire royalty amount, of Rs. 8 lacs.

4. Learned counsel further submits that a person no other than the Chief Minister of Manipur recognising the delicate state of the Film Industry in the state and need for its encouragement had written to the Central Government requesting that the said Participation Award be treated as a 'State Film Award'. Reference is invited to correspondence with Manipur Film Development Corporation wherein in particular letter dated 14.6.1995, the award for Best Art Direction and another award or certificate of participation are mentioned.

5. Mr. Neeraj Kaul, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 on the other hand submits that the Court ought not to entertain this writ petition, which had it genesis and origin in a false representation at the very thresh-hold. The petitioner, he submits, was fully conscious of the fact that the film had won only one State Award, yet he represented that the film had won not only the 'Best Art Director' award, but also the 'Best Producer' Award. Secondly, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that respondent had sought clarification from Manipur Film Development Corporation. The Corporation has clarified as late as 8th April. 1994 that the film had won an award for Best Art Director and not any other award as per the verdict of the jury for the feature and non-feature films for nomination of awards.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to urge that the said belated clarification was from an accounts officer. However, a perusal of the letter shows that the letter is authored by the Director. (Accounts) Government of Manipur and in charge Managing Director, Manipur Film Development Corporation. Moreover, on a query put by the Court as to whether all the film entries for festival were awarded participation certificate, the answer candidly given by both the counsels is in the affirmative. Counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that every producer was given the Participation Award. This is an important rather a determinate after in understanding the true nature of what is in form labelled as 'Participation Award'.

7. In this view of the matter, prima facie, it would appear that a participation certificate, even though in the form of a participation award, cannot be transformed into a State film award, which is selectively given on the decision of the jury. Accordingly the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court.

The petition is without merit and, thereforee, dismissed.