SHAGUFTA YASMIN Vs. PRASAR BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had, in response to the advertisement of the respondent in the year 2008 inviting proposals for Short Term Acquisition of Programmes, applied and submitted tapes of 13 episodes of a Programme which were cleared by the Preview Committee of the respondent and a Preview Certificate issued to the petitioner. THE respondent however vide its letter dated 21st January, 2010 informed the petitioner that owing to the petitioner having not submitted the requisite documents as asked for vide letter dated 12th October, 2009, her application had been rejected. THE petitioner continued to represent to the Director General of the respondent who vide letter dated 1st June, 2010 informed the petitioner that owing to the petitioner having not adhered to deadline set for submission of mandatory documents, her representation could not be acceded to. THE petitioner thereafter made query under the RTI Act and in response thereof was vide letter dated 10th February, 2011 informed that the letter dated 12th October, 2009 demanding documents from her had been returned undelivered to the respondent on 25th November, 2009.

(2.) THE respondent has now on 19th July, 2011 issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why she should not be blacklisted for the reason of being guilty of earlier submitting misleading information to the respondent along with her application aforesaid and having failed to substantiate the same with the documents.

(3.) AS far as the challenge to the show cause notice is concerned, this Court is reluctant to interfere at the stage of show cause notice and the remedy of the petitioner is to show cause to the respondent including on aspects as agitated here. I do not see any reason why, if there is any merit in the same the order of blacklisting as the counsel for the petitioner has contended will necessarily follow, will follow.