http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: FASIH CHAUDHARY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/09/1988

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) KANIA, M.H. RANGNATHAN, S.

CITATION:  1989 AIR  157            1988 SCR  Supl. (3) 282  1989 SCC  (1)  89        JT 1988 (4)    50  1988 SCALE  (2)1079

ACT:     Articles 226/136 of the  Constitution--T.V.Serial--Mirza Ghalib-Selection   of-Whether   discriminatory--Scope    and exercise of authority by Doordarshan--Whether proper and  in accordance with principle of fair-play.

HEADNOTE:     With a view to produce T.V. Serials based on themes e.g. national integration, Communal harmony, against exploitation of  child labour, equal status for women  etc.,  Doordarshan invited proposals from producers sponsors. The last date for submitting  such projects was 7th May, 1986 and it was  also made  obligatory by Doordarshan that projects should  comply with  the  guidelines prescribed by it. Clause  (2)  of  the guidelines  inter  alia  required  that  the  proposals  for sponsored  programs should consist of break up of the  story in  episodes;  complete synopsis of each  episode;  detailed scenario, script of at least one episode etc. As per  clause (3)   of  the  guidelines  the  proposals  on   receipt   by Doordarshan   were   to  be  given  a  reference   No.   and acknowledged.  The  guidelines also prescribed that  if  any proposal is not accompanied by any of the documents required by the guidelines, that deficiency was to be pointed out  to the producer of the proposal and was to be treated  complete only  when all the requirements contained in the  guidelines referred  to  above  are  complied with.  On  the  theme  of national integration the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 had submitted projects on the life and history of the great urdu poet Mirza Ghalib.     The projects submitted by the Petitioner and by  another person  were not approved/selected for telecast as the  same were  not found to be either attractive or  interesting  but the  one  sent by Respondent No  Gulzar--was  selected.  The Petitioner  challenged  the said action  of  Doordarshan  as arbitrary and based on malice by filing writ petition in the High  Court  u/a  226  of the  Constitution  praying  for  a direction  to  the  Union of India and  the  Doordarshan  to accept  the script of the Petitioner and eventually to  give him the contract. His contention before the  High Court  was mainly that Respondent No. 2-Shri GULZAR-had been  preferred

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

over the Petitioner by practising discrimination                                                   PG NO 282                                                   PG NO 283 nation in the matter of selection of T.V. Serial even though the  Petitioner  had submitted his project on 7th  May  1986 whilst Respondent No. 2 had not.     The  High  Court did not f˜nd substance in  any  of  the contentions raised by the Petitioner and dismissed the  Writ Petition. Against the order of the High Court of 13th  July, 1988  dismissing  the Writ Petition the Petitioner  filed  a petition  for  special  leave  to  appeal  u/a  136  of  the Constitution.     Dismissing the petition for Special leave, this Court,     HELD:  That  Respondent No. 2--Gulzar had  by  a  letter dated  the  4th February, 1986 submitted the  theme  of  the matter  and  Doordarshan had asked him  to  furnish  further details to make the proposal complete and after the proposal was  so made complete, the same alongwith others was  placed for   consideration  ’before  the  Committee.   Though   the proposals  might  not  have  been  considered  strictly   in accordance  with  the  order of  precedence  yet  they  were considered fairly or reasonably. [285C; 286F-G]     That  there was obJectivity in the actual  consideration of  the different proposals and that there was  fairness  in the  decision  and that no malice or ill-will  coloured  the decision-making process in the case. The Petitioner was  not refused proper consideration because Respondent 2  described the petitioner as one who is a ˜’maverick", on the  contrary the serial submitted by the Petitioner was neither found  to be attractive nor interesting. [287A-B]     Ram  & Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana & Ors.,  [l985]  3, SCC  267  at  pp. 268 and 269 Haji T.M.  Hassan  Rawther  v. Kerala  Financial  Corporation, AIR 1988 SC 157 at  p.  161, referred to.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition (Civil) No. 9814 of 1988.     From the Judgment and Order dated 13.7.1988 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 3423 of 1987.     Govinda Mukhoty, R.N. Keswani, Irfan Ahmed and M.  Safid for the Petitioner.     Kuldip Singh, Additional Solicitor General, Mrs.  Sushma Suri, Ms. Indu Goswami, Pinaki Mishra and Ms. Bina Gupta for the Respondents.                                                    PG NO 284     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SABYASACHI  MUKHARJI,  J. This petition is  for  special leave  to  appeal  from the decision of the  High  Court  of Delhi,  dated  13th July, 1988. By the said Order  the  High Court  dismissed the writ petition filed by the  petitioner. In  the said writ petition, the petitioner had asked  for  a direction  to the Union of India and/or the  Doordarshan  to accept  the script of the petitioner and eventually to  give him the contract. The High Court in its order recorded  that there  was no substance in the allegation that Shri  Gulzar, respondent  No.  Z  herein,  had  been  preferred  over  the petitioner   by  practising  discrimination.  There  was   a proposal   to  produce  T.V.  serials  based   on   national integration, communal harmony, against exploitation of child labour,  equal status for women etc. etc. and the last  date for  submitting  such  projects was 7th May,  1986.  It  was further announced by the Doordarshan that the project should

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

be  completed  in  terms of the  guidelines  issued  by  the Doordarshan,  respondent  No.  1. The  said  guidelines  for sponsored  programme  to  be produced  by  sponsor  indicate certain requirement for the proposals. The guidelines, inter alia,  state in clause (2) that the proposals for  sponsored programmes should consist of the following:     (a)  break-up of the story in episodes and broadline  of treatment;     (b) complete synopsis of each episode;     (c)  detailed scenario script of at least one  episodes; and    (d)  confirmed names and addresses of  Director,  Camera- man,  Music Director, Script/Dialogue Writer,  Main  Artists etc.     Clause (3) of the said guidelines indicated further that all  proposals received by the Doordarshan will be  given  a reference  number  and acknowledge. In  case  proposals  not accompanied  by  any of the  foregoing  documents  mentioned aforesaid are received, a suitable indication would be given by   the  Doordarshan  to  the  Producer  along   with   the acknowledgment.  It further indicated that a proposal  would be  considered "complete" only after the required number  of copies  of the documents mentioned aforesaid were  supplied. It appears, therefore,that a proposal though not  containing all  the  particulars would still be a Proposal  but  not  a "complete"  proposal but the proposal will be complete  only                                                   PG NO 285 after  the  required number of copies of all  the  documents mentioned  hereinbefore are supplied. The theme  with  which the  petitioner  was  concerned  and  with  which  also  the proposal of respondent No. 2 was concerned, was the life and history of the great Urdu poet Mirza Ghalib. It was the case of  the  petitioner  that  before  the  last  date  for  the submission  of  the  project on 7th  May,  1986  though  the petitioner  had submitted his project, respondent No. 2  had not.     The High Court did not accept the aforesaid  allegation. We  have examined the records and the acknowledgment  sheets in  original  which  were  produced in  the  Court  for  our satisfaction  and it appears to us that the High  Court  was right  on this point and the petitioner was not.  Respondent No.  2 submitted, it appears, the theme of the matter  by  a letter dated 4th February, 1986. This was not undoubtedly  a complete  project. It was only on the theme of the  project, namely. the life and history of the great poet Mirza Ghalib. The petitioner, however, by a letter dated 13th March,  1986 submitted  the proposal with 13 episodes giving  the  entire idea  of his project depicting the life of Mirza Ghalib  and his  contribution  to the national  integration.  The  final decision to award the project to respondent No. 2 was taken, it  appears,  some time in November 1986  after  considering three  complete proposals on the project. It appears  to  us from the records that the Doordarshan authorities found that the project submitted by the petitioner was not  "attractive or interesting". It appears further from the letter that the Doordarshan  authorities  did not find the proposal  of  the petitioner  to be "attractive or interesting" enough.  There was one more proposal given by another person apart from the petitioner  and respondent No. 2. It is, however, not  clear what  that  proposal was. It appears  that  the  Doordarshan authorities  did not find the proposal of that person to  be any  more  attractive  or  interesting  than  that  of   the petitioner. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 had  submitted his  proposal and the Doordarshan, though the  proposal  was not complete, asked respondent No.2 to give further  details

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

and  after  they were submitted by respondent No.  2,it  was examined  by  the Committee. It was asserted  on  behalf  of respondent  No. 2, and it appears to be corroborated by  the records  that  before the proposal of respondent No.  2  was considered, the script and the proposal of the petitioner as well  as  that of the other person were considered  and  not found  to be "attractive or interesting" enough.  Therefore, it appears that though the idea was presented by  respondent No.2  by a letter but the matter was decided only after  the entire  proposal had been submitted by respondent No. 2.  It appears,  therefore,  that  all  the  proposals  were   duly considered  by  the  Committee.  It  further  appears   that                                                   PG NO 286 respondent  No. 2 had submitted his proposal before his  was respondent  No. 2 had submitted his proposal before his  was accepted by the Doordarshan authorities.     The   conduct  of  the  Doordarshan  in   awarding   the opportunity  of serialising the script to respondent  No.  2 was challenged as arbitrary and mala fide.     It  is  well-settled that there should be  fair-play  in action in a situation like the present one, as was  observed by this Court in Ram & Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1985]  3 SCC 267 at pages 268-269. It is also  well-settled that the authorities like the Doordarshan should act  fairly and   their  action  should  be  legitimate  and  fair   and transaction  should  be  without  any  aversion,  malice  or affection. Nothing should be done which gives the impression of  favouritism  or nepotism. See the observations  of  this Court  in  Haji  T.M. Hassan  Rawther  v.  Kerala  Financial Corpn., AIR 1988 SC 157 at page 161.     While, as mentioned hereinbefore, fair-play in action in matters  like the present one is an  essential  requirement, similarly,  however,  free  play in the joints’  is  also  a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in  an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative  sphere as  the present one. Judged from that stand point  of  view, though  all  the proposals might not  have  been  considered strictly in accordance with order of precedence, it  appears that  these were considered fairly, reasonably,  objectively and without any malice or ill-will.     Respondent No. ’2, it further appears. has a long record of  steady and successful performance in direction,  script- writing  recognised  by the conventional  yardstick  of  the society.  Ii’  having  regard  to  such  a  record,  certain latitude  in  taking up for consideration was shown  to  the proposal submitted by the respondent No. 2, in our  opinion, respondent No. 1 did not transgress the limits of  fair-play in   action.   All   the  proposals   were,   as   mentioned hereinbefore,  duly considered. These were considered  by  a Committee of eminent persons. Our attention was drawn to the names  of  the  members  of  the  Committee.  As   mentioned hereinbefore, the Committee did not find the proposal of the petitioner  and  the  other  person  either  attractive   or interesting  enough in awarding the TV serial on the  aspect of  national  integration of the lifetime of  Mirza  Ghalib. After  it  was so found, the idea of respondent  No.  2  was considered  and  the proposal was duly considered.  We  have satisfied ourselves from the records produced at the time of the  hearing  and from the affidavits filed before  us  that there  was  objectivity in the actual consideration  of  the                                                   PG NO 287 different  proposals  and  that there was  fairness  in  the decision  and  that  no  malice  or  ill-will  coloured  the decision-making process in this case. The petitioner was not refused  proper consideration because what respondent No.  ’

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

described the petitioner as one who is a ’maverick’.     In the aforesaid light and in the facts of this case and the principles of law that are applicable, we are  satisfied that  the  High  Court was right and  the  decision  of  the respondent  No.  1 does not call for any  interference.  The Special Leave Petition must fail and is, therefore dismissed accordingly. Y. Lal                                   Petition dismissed.