The main legal point established is the requirement for specific allegations and due process in blacklisting orders, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for application of mind.

1. The petitioner, Ms. Rama Pandey, sole proprietor of Montage Films has challenged the blacklisting order dated 15th April, 2009 passed by Director General, Doordarshan, Prasar Bharti in the present writ petition.

2. Prasar Bharti in the year 2006 had invited proposals from television producers for short term acquisition of programs in different categories as specified. A television producer desirous of submitting a proposal was required to furnish details with documents along with non-refundable process fee of Rs.10,000/-. The note to the said advertisement reads as under:-

³Note:

x

Since this is a requirement for ready programmes any/all tapes may be required at any stage of processing at short notice. Failure to submit tapes within specified time will lead to disqualification/rejection of the proposal without any further correspondence.

xProposals incomplete in any respect, or submitted with any incorrect information will be liable for disqualification.

xOnly proposals finally approved for acquisition, course.

xDD reserves the right to reject any proposal based on changing requirements of channels

3. The petitioner submitted along with a pilot tape. By letter dated 24th February, 2007, Prasar Bharti requested the petitioner to submit 26 number of episodes/tapes in DVC Pro 50 format only within 15 days for preview purposes only. It was further stated in this letter as under:-

You are requested to submit 26 number of episodes/tapes (DVC Pro-50 only, meeting technical specifications as in Acquisition Guidelines of Doordarshan) within 15 (fifteen) days of the date of issue of this letter for preview purpose only. Kindly note that any extension of date may not be possible. Non-submission of tapes by the stipulated date may result in

4. The petitioner vide letter dated 11th March, 2007, which was received by Prasar Bharti on 12th March, 2007 submitted 26 tapes of were in DVC Pro 50 format.

5. By letter dated 27th June, 2007, Prasar Bharti informed the petitioner that 26 tapes submitted on 12th March, 2007 to the Directorate for preview contained repeat episodes. This, it was stated, was contrary not only to the acquisition advertisement but also against ethics and code. The petitioner was asked to explain and respond why she had submitted repeat episodes. By letter dated 25th July, 2007, the petitioner informed that she was out of country in USA and it was possible that by mistake repeat episodes might have been sent as it was a normal practice to make additional copies. It was stated that the mistake was not intentional and, if required, new episodes would be submitted as soon as she came back to India.

6. The petitioner had also submitted a proposal for another program letter dated 31st August, 2007, the petitioner requested for payment and she had submitted :- which have already replied to your official letter in this without an W.P. (C) No. 8558/2009 4

7. Prasar Bharti issued show cause notice dated 11th September, 2007 why the petitioner should not be blacklisted for submitting repeat tapes of Relevant and material part of the letter reads:-

considered. However, prima-facie the explanation has not found to be satisfactory. In the circumstances, you are hereby called upon to show cause why an order of blacklisting be not

8. The petitioner in her reply dated 24th September, 2007 stated that duplicate copies or repeat tapes were sent by mistake or human error and she had been working for 30 years with Doordarshan and others and her integrity and excellence were never in doubt and challenged. It was stated that blacklisting would be harsh as it would nullify her 30 years of outstanding work and image in the media circles. Petitioner wrote letter dated 10th March, 2008 and another undated letter requesting for return of the tapes and payment of money in respect of the

9. As stated above, by order dated 15th April, 2009, the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of two years from the date of the s