PRIMA CHANNEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the third respondent dated March 26, 1996. By that order, the petitioners were directed to complete the serial "Chandrakanta" in four episodes and the last episode of the serial to be telecast on April 21, 1996. The first petitioner claims to be a software production organisation and is owned by the second petitioner. The first respondent is the Union of India in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, while the second and the third respondents are the Director General, Doordarshan, and the Controller of Programmes, Office of the Director General, Doordarshan, respectively. On October 21, 1993 the second respondent permitted the first petitioner to telecast the serial "Chandrakanta" on Sundays at 9.00 A.M. from January 23, 1994. The serial was approved for 26 episodes to be shown at the aforesaid Prime Time. On April 10, 1994, at the request of the petitioners for rescheduling of the serial, the Doordarshan approved the telecast of the serial from March 20, 1994 instead of January 23, 1994. Again at the request of the petitioners, the second respondent by its letter dated February 21, 1994 granted permission to extend the serial upto 52 episodes, subject, however, to the right of the Doordarshan to terminate the extension accorded by giving four weeks' notice in case the viewership of the serial comes down and the serial does not attract adequate spot-buys. By a letter dated December 1, 1994 the petitioners again asked the Doordarshan for a further extension of the episode. Responding favourably the second respondent on December 22, 1994 extended the telecast of the serial by another 52 episodes subject to the condition that the petitioners will provide a minimum guarantee of at least Rs.20 lakhs (net) or Rs.23 lakhs (gross) for each episode and adjustments within the remaining episodes. The second respondent also reserved the right to discontinue the serial by giving four weeks' notice in case the minimum guarantee was not met. On October 16, 1995, the petitioners again applied for sanction of telecast of additional episodes. Thereupon, the third respondent by its letter dated December 1, 1995 extended the telecast of the serial by 52 more episodes, thus, permitting, telecast of 156 episodes of the serial 'Chandrakanta'. The second respondent, however, reserved the right to terminate the serial by giving four weeks' notice in case the viewership of the serial comes down and/or the serial fails to attract adequate spot buys. The petitioners were also asked to send synopsis of the future episodes within six weeks of the issue of the letter. The petitioners pursuant to the aforesaid letter of the second respondent, submitted the synopsis of additional episodes which were received by the second respondent on February 22, 1996. By a letter dated March 29, 1996, before the petitioner had even completed the telecast of 104 episodes of the serial, the third respondent directed the petitioners to complete the serial in the next four episodes and Fixed April 21, 1996 as the date for telecast of its last episode. The said letter records that the commercial spots with the serial 'Chandrakanta' were gradually coming down and the synopsis of the future episodes of the serial were not received as per the stipulation contained in the letter of the second respondent dated December 1, 1995. It is this letter of the respondent which has been assailed in the writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Nariman, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, contended that the impugned action has been taken by the Doordarshan under letter dated December I, 1995, when it was not open to them to invoke the same as the conditions for termination of the serial mentioned therein would apply only after the telecast of its 104th episode. Since the telecast of 104th episode has yet to take place the parties are bound by the terms and conditions contained in the letter of December 22, 1994 which governs the telecast of the episode Nos. 53 to 104. It was further canvassed that even if the conditions of termination specified in the letter of December 1, 1995, apply, the impugned action would still fall foul of it as the petitioners were not given four weeks' prior notice in consonance with the said letter. He further submitted that the reasons for terminating the telecast of the serial did not exist. According to him, the serial did not fail to attract spot-buys, rather the spot-buys were going up. In so far as the other reason mentioned in the letter of March 29, 1996, for taking the impugned action is concerned, Mr. Nariman pointed out that the synopsis of the future episodes of the serial starting from 105th episode to 165th episode were sent to the second respondent who had received the same on February 25, 1996, as per endorsement on the letter of the petitioners dated February 5, 1996. He also argued that the letter dated March 29, 1996, has been issued for extraneous purposes which is evident from the fact that the second respondent had entered into negotiations with the fourth respondent for telecast of the serial "Shree Krishna" even before the impugned action was taken on March 29, 1996, and on that date itself the second respondent permitted the fourth respondent to start the telecast of the said serial from April 28, 1996. Learned counsel also emphasised that there was not even a whisper of any complaint against the serial. Lastly, he submitted that the impugned order was not preceded by a show-cause notice and action has been taken without hearing the petitioners.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that having entered into the field of contract the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned letter whereby the petitioner has been asked to complete the serial by April 21, 1996. It was also submitted that the Free Commercial Time consumed per episode had gone down. It was contended that even if the petitioners had not completed the telecast of 104 episodes, the impugned action was justified as the commercial spots with the serial were gradually coming down. According to the learned counsel this condition not only forms part of the letter dated December 1, 1995 but is also implicit in the letter of the respondent dated December 22, 1994 as this letter is to be read alongwith the earlier letter of the respondent dated February 21, 1994 which specifically incorporater the conditions.