ZEE TELEFILMS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 12th March, 1999 by which learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, the petitioners/appellants have filed this appeal.

(2.) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner No. 1 is a company dealing in the business of production, acquisition etc. of various programmes, films and the like and telecast, export etc. thereof. Petitioner No. 2 owns a well known film magazine namely Zee Premiere. Petitioner No. 3 is the editor of said film magazine while petitioner No. 4 is one of the shareholders of petitioner No. 1 company. Respondent No. 2 is a statutory corporation constituted under Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990. Respondent No. 3 is the Chief Executive Officer while respondent No. 4 is the Deputy Director General (Doordarshan) of respondent No. 2. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 allots time slots for telecast of programmes and events etc. on National Network (DD-1) and Metro Channel (DD-2) against payment of telecast fee. Petitioner No. 1 in the year 1998 started event namely Lux Zee Cine Awards and on the applications dated 27th February, 1998 and 3rd March, 1998 submitted by it, the respondents vide letter dated 5th March, 1998 permitted petitioner No. 1 to telecast said event on 14th March, 1998 as per the terms and conditions contained in above letter 5th March, 1998.

(3.) For the year 1999 petitioner. No. 2 authorised petitioner No. 1 to organise aforesaid event and to deal with respondents in relation to the telecast of the programme on National Network of Doordarshan. In connection with said event, the petitioners got published the poll forms in various leading newspapers of the country and spent more. than Rs. 80 lacs. Besides, poll forms were also made available on the interest. Almost 4.5 lac poll forms have been received by the petitioners from all over the country by post and about 2.5 million poll responses have been received through internet site. All these in turn have been handed over to Price Water House and Gallop Poll MBA for the purposes of audit and consequent result. Results of the poll are to be announced during the event to be held on 14th March, 1999 at Mumbai. It is further stated that the event is likely to be cheered and visited by the renowned celebrities in the fields of film, drama, music technology, media, corporate world, advertising etc. from India and abroad. Event will also carry the live performances by Madhuri Dixit, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, Juhi Chawla, Daler Mehandi, Franz Harare and Kenu Reaves etc. Entry to the event is restricted by invitation only. Public at large in India will be entertained by the live programmes to be performed by the artists. It is alleged that the cable penetration of Indian homes is not more than 20% of the total television homes and, therefore, the entire public in India cannot be entertained without the event being telecast on Doordarshan. Thus, through the letter dated 17th February, 1999 which was followed by the letter dated 3rd March, 1999, petitioners approached the respondents with request for live telecast of said mega event on the National Network of Doordarshan on 14th March, 1999 during the period 8.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. with 6/7 slots of half-an-hour each against payment of fee as charged by the respondents. In the year 1999 itself, respondents have telecast similar events namely Filmfare Manikchand Award, 1999, Screen Videocon Award, 1999 and Femina Palmolive Miss World Award, 1999. Since the petitioners did not hear anything from the respondents, on 4th March, 1999 petitioner No. 4 personally met respondent No. 4 to know the outcome of the letters dated 17th February, 1999 and 3rd March, 1999. During the course of discussion, respondent No. 4 while declining to provide- any reply to the petitioners in writing categorically told petitioner No. 4 that respondents have decided not to allow the telecast of said event on Doordarshan as the same was being telecast by the rival channel Zee TV. It is asserted that the decision of respondents in not permitting the telecast of aforesaid event is in violation of the provisions contained in Articles 14, 19(l)(a), 19(l)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was prayed that by issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, the decision taken by respondents in declining the telecast of said event be quashed. It was further prayed that by issue of writ of mandamus, the respondents be directed to telecast said event to held on 14th March, live for which the petitioners arc agreeable to abide by the terms and conditions of the rate card etc. issued by the respondents.