LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-160

RAMA PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INIDA

Decided On July 22, 2009
RAMA PANDEY Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Ms. Rama Pandey, sole proprietor of Montage Films has challenged the blacklisting order dated 15th April, 2009 passed by director General, Doordarshan, Prasar Bharti in the present writ petition.

(2.) PRASAR Bharti in the year 2006 had invited proposals from television producers for short term acquisition of programs in different categories as specified. A television producer desirous of submitting a proposal was required to furnish details with documents along with non-refundable W. P. (C)No. 8558/2009 2 process fee of Rs. 10,000/ -. The note to the said advertisement reads as under:-"note: since this is a requirement for ready programmes any/all tapes may be required at any stage of processing at short notice. Failure to submit tapes within specified time will lead to disqualification/rejection of the proposal without any further correspondence. Proposals incomplete in any respect, or submitted with any incorrect information will be liable for disqualification. Only proposals finally approved for acquisition, will be notified on doordarshans website in due course. DD reserves the right to reject any proposal based on changing requirements of channels without assigning any reason. "

(3.) THE petitioner submitted a proposal for program "faisle" in Urdu along with a pilot tape. By letter dated 24th February, 2007, Prasar Bharti requested the petitioner to submit 26 number of episodes/tapes in DVC pro 50 format only within 15 days for preview purposes only. It was further stated in this letter as under:-". . You are requested to submit 26 number of episodes/tapes (DVC pro-50 only, meeting technical specifications as in Acquisition Guidelines of doordarshan) within 15 (fifteen) days of the date of issue of this letter for preview purpose only. Kindly note that any extension of date may not be possible. Non-submission of tapes by the stipulated date may result in rejection of the proposal. " w. P. (C) No. 8558/2009 3