SHARAT CHANDER CHOPRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner's alleged dues towards royalty for the script allegedly written by the petitioner in respect of the TV Serial entitled 'Devi Choudhrani'.

(2.) A short background would be necessary. Devi Choudhrani is a novel written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhay. Doordarshan desired to telecast the said novel in the form of a 13 episode TV Serial. For the purpose, the Director, Central Production Centre, Doordarshan by a letter dated 03.03.1989 written to the petitioner and one Sh. Bhaskar Nayar indicated that they were grateful to them for having agreed to adapt the said novel for a TV Serial of not more than 13 episodes of 25-30 minutes duration each. In paragraph 2 of the said letter, which forms the basis of the agreement between Doordarshan on the one side and the petitioner and Sh. Bhaskar Nayar on the other side, it is recorded as under:-

(3.) Pursuant to this letter, an agreement was entered into between Doordarshan and the petitioner and Mr Bhaskar Nayar in which the latter two persons had agreed to write the screenplay and dialogues for the said TV serial 'Devi Choudhrani'. The acceptance by the petitioner and Bhaskar Nayar of the job entrusted to them was signed on 29.03.1989 a copy whereof is at page 47 of the Paper Book. From the aforesaid two documents, i.e., the letter dated 03.03.1989 and the acceptance dated 29.03.1989, it is clear that the petitioner alongwith the said Mr Bhaskar Nayar were jointly commissioned to write the screenplay and dialogues for the 13-episode TV Serial 'Devi Choudhrani' @ Rs3,500/- per episode. In paragraph 4 of the petition itself, it is indicated that on 03.05.1989, the petitioner submitted the script to respondent No.5 covering 13-episodes for which he was paid Rs 45,500/- @ Rs3,500/- per episode. Thus, it is an admitted position that the job for which the petitioner and Bhaskar Nayar were commissioned had been completed. The completed work had been submitted to Doordarshan and they (petitioner and Bhaskar Nayer) had received the payment as agreed and as evidenced by the said letter dated 03.03.1989 and 29.03.1989. It is, therefore, clear that nothing further survives in respect of the agreement and contract between the petitioner and Mr Bhaskar Nayar on the one hand and, Doordarshan on the other. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition.