K. AUDIO VISUAL CENTRE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has craved the indulgence of this Court in granting him the following relief(s):

(2.) The background facts, as stated by the petitioner in his petition, leading to the filing of the instant petition are that on 28th of December, 2016, a request for proposals for telecast on Doordarshan Arunprabha was publicly notified. The petitioner, as stated, being eligible responded to the said notice and submitted his proposal in respect of "Reality Show (Musical)" for consideration. The Directorate General, Doordarshan, appears to have shortlisted 390 proposals which were submitted to the Evaluation Committee for selection. It is stated that out of 390 Proposals shortlisted, approximately 27 proposals relate to "Reality Show (Musical)" in "Open Category" and that the proposal submitted by the petitioner was not accepted by the respondents. The petitioner has proceeded to state that as per information put up on the Website by the Directorate General, the respondents followed the following procedure in shortlisting the proposals:

(3.) Mr Shah, the learned senior counsel, representing the petitioner, submits that neither the constitution of Screening Committees was publicly disclosed nor was it made public as to who were the outside Experts or who was the Senior Officer of the Doordarshan associated with the scrutiny of the proposals. The learned senior counsel further submits that it is also not forthcoming as to which authority had prescribed parameters for evaluation of the proposals and what were those parameters; whether they were relevant or not and how many points were reserved for each parameter has not been disclosed by the respondents. It is contended that the petitioner has been constrained to file the instant petition in view of the fact that the proposals are to be submitted to the Evaluation Committee for selection and that if any proposal is selected by the Evaluation Committee eventually the contract may be awarded to the successful party and it will have the effect of creating third party interests in the proceedings. It is also pleaded that the exclusion of the petitioner is not only without any justification/ basis, but also contrary to the law.