Samaresh Banerjea, J.: Can the Prasar Bharati Corporation which is a statutory Corporation and State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, have unfettered discretion in the matter of its dealings with the citizens in performance of its statutory duties under the Prasar Bharati Act? Can an agreement entered into by the Prasar Bharati Corporation or one of its unit Doordarshan Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as D.D.) with a producer for selling its time slot, for enabling the said producer to telecast its programme, in performance of their statutory duty as enjoined upon them under the Prasar Bharati Act, be purely commercial in nature or does it involve a public element? Would it be of any consequence even if such contract is purely of a commercial nature if the action of the Prasar Bharati while performing its statutory duties affect the right of a producer under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 of the Constitution? Would an arbitrary action of a public authority or of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution in the realm of concluded contract work be amenable to the writ jurisdiction and open to Judicial Review? Can the Prasar Bharati Corporation which is the creature of Prasar Bharati Act and is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution in the matter of its dealing with different producer for selling its time slot to enable them to telecast their programmes in performance of its statutory duties under the Act can act like an ordinary merchant guided by profit motive free from the shackle of Article 14 of the Constitution? Is the impugned action of the Prasar Bharati Corporation arbitrary and has affected the right of the appellant under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?

2. All these grave questions have been debated by the learned counsels of the parties in the present appeals which have been filed against the order of the trial court dismissing the writ petition, for 17 days.

3. One would have thought some of the above questions have already been settled because of the different decisions of the Supreme Court including the decisions in the cases of Srilekha Vidyarthi, Dwarkadas Marfatia, Delhi State Transport Corporation, Common Cause and also because of coming into operation of the Prasar Bharati Act.

4. But that is not to be and because of the ability of the learned counsels for the parties and their ingenuity of submissions it has become necessary for this court to examine the above questions and scrutinise what is the correct position of law.

Before going into such question however, for proper appreciation of the issues involved in the present appeals before us, it is first of all necessary to refer to the relevant facts.

5. Both the present appeals which have been heard analogously were preferred by the writ petitioners against the judgment and order dated 16th May, 2000 whereby the trial court dismissed all the four writ petitions which were heard analogously including the present two namely M/s. Softline Multimedia & Anr. vs. Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India & Anr. and M/s. H.P.C. Production & Anr. vs. Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India & Anr.

6. In fact, the other two writ petitioners namely, Smt. Asima Mukherjee and Sri Joydeep Mukherjee also preferred appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order and all the four appeals were being heard analogously.

7. But in course of hearing of the aforesaid four appeals, the said writ petitioners namely, Sm. Asima Mukherjee and Joydeep Mukherjee did not went to press their appeal any further for which both the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

8. We are, therefore, concerned at present only with the present two appeals.

9. The grievance in both the appeals M/s. Softline and M/s. H.P.C. Production factually and legally, which prompted them to move the writ petition, more or less are same.

10. Both the writ petitioners admittedly are producers of existing sponsored programme