Honble JAIN, J. – In this Public Interest Litigation Petition, filed on 27.3.1997, it is alleged that to celebrate 50th Anniversary of Indias Independence, the respondent No. 1 sanctioned rupees 25 crores and rupees 1 crore have been distributed to various States. Rupees 1 crore has been provided to Regional Kendra, Jaipur-respondent No. 3 for preparing programmes produced as per the action plan circula- ted on 4.2.1997. The grievance of the petitioner is that no proper guidelines were framed by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India nor by the Director General, Doordarshan to execute the action plan, and without following existing prescribed procedure of preparing any panel of Directors, Artists, Writers and track record, the respondents have selected their own persons without any basis who have no knowledge and required experience in the field of telecasting such programmes and production. The respondents distributed the Government funds so allotted in the garb of getting programmes executed through persons of their choice on extraneous consideration. It is alleged that no proposals were invited through advertisement in news-papers or otherwise and, therefore, neces- sary directions may be issued for making fresh panel. It is also alleged that since public exchequer has been misused, it needs investigation and suitable action (1) and (2) and, therefore, order therefore may be issued. He

(2) The respondents have filed one common reply in response to the show cause notice issued by this court, alongwith the affidavit of Smt. Vimla Mittal, Direc- tor, Doordarshan Kendra, Jaipur. It is stated that decision making is a collective process involving different level of the staff members and the Director of the Regional Kendra. The scheme of empanelment started in 1994 has been abondoned as per the information of the respondent No.2 and, since no scheme was in existence, the question of publishing principles or guidelines for selection or em- anelment does not arise. It is also stated that maximum opportunities have been given to all and the respondent No. 3 is not functioning arbitrarily. It is stated that the petitioner has no right to comment upon the functioning of the respondent No.3 in any manner and no case of infringement of provisions of Arts. 14, 21, 19 & 300-A of the Constitution of India is made out by the respondents and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. Reliance has been placed on 1996 (6) SCC 584.(3)

(3) Rejoinder to this reply has been filed by the petitioner.

(4) The case come up before me on 23.7.1997 and, as no guidelines were filed in compliance of the order dated 28.3.1997, the respondents were directed to get the relevant record produced. The record could not be produced for one reason or the other. On 8.8.1997, Dy. Director, Doordarshan was present in court and he submitted that 15 episodes are ready and 10 episodes are in the process of being complete. The programme was to start from 11.8.1997; between 8.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. and, thereafter, on 18th and 25th August and 1st, 8th and 15th September, 1997 and so forth. However, it was submitted that programmes scheduled for telecast at different centres have not been finalised and pending before the Doordarshan Directorate, Delhi. The learned counsel for the Union of India stated that in spite of his best efforts he could not get the required record from the concerned authorities. The case was adjourned to 13.8.1997 and, as agreed, it was directed that the respondents shall not telecast programmes after 11.8.1997 till further orders and further they shall not pay any further amount to the producers. On 13.8.1997, the record was not produced. Shri Rathore submitted that guidelines for consideration, processing and approval of proposals received from out side producers for telecas- ting programmes issued by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting issued on 7.5.1993 are applicable for telecasting programmes for 50th Ann

Click Here to Read the rest of this document