ARUN KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. PRASAR BHARATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent to make available copies of the documents pertaining to the "ICC Knockout Tournament 1998", as requested by him. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to abide by its circular dated 25.11.1997, containing instructions for ensuring transparency in the working of Prasar Bharati.

(2.) Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has been heard in support of the writ petition. Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that he had been engaged as a Financial Expert by Prasar Bharati. Petitioner was asked to look into the formation and functioning of the Sports Consortium consisting of private parties as also the buying and marketing of TV rights pertaining to various events. Petitioner claims to have submitted a report, which according to him, highlighted the conspiracy between the officials of the respondent and the consortium parties by which Doordarshan was made to suffer losses of over 20 crores. Petitioner had made the report public in a press conference in April, 2000. As per the petitioner, Mr. Jagmohan Dalmia, President of the International Cricket Council, was involved in the said conspiracy. this led to the President of the International Cricket Council, Mr. Jagmohan Dalmia, filing a criminal complaint for defamation under Section 500/501 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.

(3.) Petitioner had been summoned to appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate and he is stated to have appeared in the third week of July, 2000. Petitioner claims that in order to adequately defend himself in the said criminal complaint, he requires photostat copies of all the documents pertaining to ICCKnockout Tournament 1998. Petitioner had requested the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent vide his letter dated 11.5.2000 to supply these documents, but to no avail. Rather the respondent has declined the request on the ground that the mailer was sub-judice.