Delhi High Court
Sh. Sharat Chander Chopra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 21 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004IAD(DELHI)649, 109(2004)DLT342, 2003(71)DRJ93
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed
JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
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:-
"2. Doordarshan would offer a consolidated fee of Rs. 3, 500/- (Rupees Three Thousand five hundred) only jointly to both of you for complete screen play and dialogues for each episodes. We would expect that atleast eight Episodes would be made available to us by the 29th March, 1989. That would enable us to make the payment to you within the current financial year. The balance will be paid on the completion of the remaining episodes. This is, of course, subject to the approval of your scripts by us."
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 Along with 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.
4. However, some points must be noted. First of all, the petitioner and Mr Bhaskar Nayar had been jointly commissioned for the purposes of writing the screenplay and dialogues of the aforesaid Serial. Only the petitioner has approached this Court and Mr Bhaskar Nayar, who would be necessary and proper, has not been imp leaded. Secondly, the petitioner had admittedly submitted the screenplay and dialogues in 1989 and had admittedly been paid therefore at the agreed rates in 1989 itself. There is no letter on record to show that the petitioner was in any way dissatisfied with this payment atleast during the period 1989 to 1997. This, in itself, is an indication that the petitioner had accepted the payments and the subsequent letters and the present petition are only by way of an after-thought. Thirdly, and, to my mind most importantly, the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the petition has stated as under:-
"That as per clause 9 of the contract the said contract was for a period of 3 years which is reproduced as under:-
'The Rights hereby granted in favor of the President of India shall be enforce for a period of three years from the date hereby and shall thereafter continue until determined by me giving six months/period rather in writing'."
5. As a point of fact, there is no clause 9 of the contract and thus the aforesaid statement of the petitioner, made consciously or unconsciously, is contrary to the admitted documents on record. In response to this allegation of the petitioner, the respondents have categorically stated in paragraph 4B of their counter affidavit that no such clause existed in the agreement between the petitioner and the respondents and that the petitioner has deliberately misled this Court by relying upon a non-existent term of the contract. It is their submission that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground.
6. To justify the averments contained in paragraph 3 of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that what he was referring to was part of the standard form contract which was normally being entered into between Doordarshan and similarly situated persons. It is his contention that the said clause 9 ought to have applied to his contract also. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the format that was signed was only in respect of "talks". I am unable to agree with this contention and submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner because this is not borne out by the pleadings themselves. Paragraph 4 of the writ petition which had been referred to above clearly indicates that a concluded contract for writing the screenplay and dialogues of the said serial and not just "talks" had been entered into between the petitioner and the respondents. It is an admitted position that the petitioner and Mr Bhaskar Nayar were commissioned to prepare the screenplay and dialogues for the aforesaid Serial. They did so. They were paid the agreed amount of Rs. 3, 500/- per episode.
7. In fact, the entire case of the petitioner is clearly an after-thought as would be indicated by the first paragraph of his letter dated 18.06.1998 written, inter-alia, to the Chief Executive Officer, CPC, Prasar Bharati, New Delhi. The said paragraph reads as under:-
"This is to bring to your kind notice that the undersigned had written Screen Play--Dialogues for the serial Devi Choudhrani. The Scripts covering 13 episodes were submitted on 3.5.89. It is regretted that even after a lapse of 9 years the said serial is still under production. I had accepted to write Screen Play & Dialogues at the rate of just Rs. 3500/- per episode thinking that this prestigious project would enhance my career & establish my name in the market as in those days C.P.C. was regarded as very prestigious body and there were no other channels also. Apart from this the subject of Devi Choudhrani was also fresh, advocating nationalist feelings. But, in the span of these 9 years many more serials based on the similar themes were made & telecast also. The sole object of my accepting this offer has been defeated by this delay."
From the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that at the time when the petitioner accepted to write the screenplay and dialogues, he thought that rates of Rs3, 500/- per episode would be appropriate in view of the fact that it would be a prestigious project and would enhance his career and establish his name in the market. His greivance actually is that since the TV Serial had not been telecast for over 9 years, his sole object of accepting this offer at that rate had been defeated. This cannot be a ground for filing a writ petition. He had agreed to payment at the above rates. It was nowhere indicated by Doordarshan that it would be telecasting the serial within a certain time frame. This agreement was signed between the petitioner and Bhaskar Nayar. In fact, in respect of the said TV Serial, the words indicated are 'future use' and 'as required'. There is another expression used which would completely clinch the issue and that is 'with CBR'. CBR stands for Complete Broadcasting Rights. Having contracted away the complete broadcasting rights for an agreed consideration, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that since the telecast was was delayed he was entitled to a higher payment or compensation. As such, the petitioner could have no grievance on this ground also.
8. Lastly, the petitioner has relied upon his letter dated 29.06.1998 and 27.07.1998 written by the respondents in response to his aforesaid letter of 18.06.1998 which gives some indication that his claim for revision was under consideration. In fact, in the letter dated 27.07.1998 one Mr M.D. Gera, Video Executive, had gone to the extent of saying that the Director, CPC had sanctioned payment of Rs3.20 lakhs as royalty to the petitioner for the aforesaid serial. However, there is no such sanction on record and in the very next letter dated 31.07.1998, the said Mr Gera had clarified the position regarding the payment of revised fee for writing the screenplay and dialogues for the aforesaid serial and in that letter it is indicated that the petitioner must have received the full payments of Rs45, 500/- @ Rs3, 500/- per episode in 1989 itself. Moreover, it appears and it is one of the objections on the part of the respondents that in any event the entire matter is a contractual matter and the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would have been the filing of a suit. I am in agreement with this submission of the learned counsel for the respondents also and feel that a writ petition in such a matter would in any event not lie and the petitioner ought to have approached the Civil Courts and founded his claim on contracts simplicitor.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and discussions, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.