Karnataka High Court
Union Of India And Another vs M/S. N.R.I. Film Production Associates ... on 21 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(6)KARLJ590, AIR 1999 KARNATAKA 99, (1999) 6 KANT LJ 590
Author: S.R. Venkatesha Murthy
Bench: Ashok Bhan, S.R. Venkatesha Murthy
JUDGMENT S.R. Venkatesha Murthy, J.
Writ Appeal No. 1815 of 1998 filed by Union of India and another (respondents 1 and 2) and W.A. No. 1445 of 1998 filed by the third respondent in Writ Petition No. 2055 of 1997 are consolidated for purpose of disposal by a common order.
2. The parties are referred to according to their array before the learned Single Judge.
3. The writ petitioner NRI Film Production Associates Private Limited submitted a proposal to the Director General, Doordarshan for telecasting a serial "Jesus Christ" under the name of "Son of Man" on 12th September, 1994 along with two other television serials entitled "Twilight Adventure" and "A Day in Paradise". The feature of the proposal was that the writ petitioner would produce the serials using state-of-the-art equipment with collaborations of a film production unit of U.S.A. The writ petitioner also claims to have offered the episodes with synopsis etc. However, the proposal did not materialise as there was correspondence between the writ petitioner and the minister concerned as well as the Director General, Doordarshan for a considerable period. Meanwhile, the writ petitioner made an offer to telecast the serials on the basis of an agreement similar to the agreement between the Doordarshan and the C.N.N. i.e., "Air Time Buy Out" by which a certain fixed sum of money was payable in addition to sharing the advertisement revenue on a 50:50 basis (Annexure-C).
4. The Doordarshan did not apparently accept the offer made by the writ petitioner and contended that they could nevertheless consider the proposals made by the writ petitioner on a "sponsorship scheme" basis. The writ petitioner in January 1996, informed the Doordarshan that it was mooting its proposal to buy Air Time from Doordarshan to broadcast the International television serials made in India on the same terms as were offered to C.N.N. of Atlanta, U.S.A.
5. Meanwhile, the third respondent-T.V. Vijaychander offered to telecast a serial on Jesus Christ entitled "Dayasagar". The serial was accepted for telecasting under the "sponsorship scheme" by Doordarshan. The writ petitioner being aggrieved by the acceptance of the third respondent's proposal, has filed the writ petition. It is contended by the writ petitioner that the script of the serial of 'Son of Man' that had been presented by the writ petitioner has been allowed to be plagiarised by the third respondent and that the Doordarshan authorities have deliberately allowed the connected papers to be destroyed or misplaced during the period of two years of pendency for consideration. In the circumstances, the writ petitioner has prayed for a mandamus or any other order or direction against respondents 1 and 2 not to telecast the serial "Dayasagar" from 1-2-1997 and for a further direction to consider the consolidated proposal Annexure-H, dated 20th January, 1996 and to permit the production and telecast of the serial "Son of Man" as also the other two serials "Twilight Adventure" and "A Day in Paradise".
6. Respondents 1 and 2 contested the claim of the writ petitioner and alleged that the concept of "Air Time Buy Out" was the basis on which the writ petitioner sought to telecast his serials "The Son of Man" and two other serials subsequently added and it was not acceptable to respondents 1 and 2. The agreement entered into between "Turner International", a foreign telecasting company, has no similarity with the offer made by the writ petitioner.
7. The writ petitioner was required to make a proposal in terms of the "sponsorship scheme" on Doordarshan in accordance with the letter approved by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting dated 1-11-1996 and the position was made clear to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was called upon to make his submission in accordance with the "sponsorship scheme" by producing a V.H.S. Pilot for consideration of the second respondent. The writ petitioner, it is contended, seeks to blame the respondents for its own laches. The respondents, as per the request of the writ petitioner Veda Nayak, returned the two copies of the script in respect of the proposals submitted by him, (as per his request on 21-11-1996 (Annexure-R6)). Even at that time, the writ petitioner was informed that the submission of V.H.S. Pilot for examination by the selection committee was necessary to enable the respondents to take a final decision regarding telecast worthiness of the episode prepared. The petitioner, it is alleged, has not complied with the requirements stipulated by the Doordarshan and is not, therefore entitled to any right to telecast his service through the second respondent.
8. The respondents 1 and 2 have denied that the script and the proposal of the petitioner was ever given to the third respondent. Epics like "Story of Christ", "Ramayan" and "Mahabharath" are not, and cannot be, the absolute property of any individual and that there could be no copyright in respect of them. The script of "Dayasagar" in Hindi is produced by M/s. Radha Chitra, 23/2, Ganga Amman Koil Street, Madras, is written by Bhimsen Narmel and directed by Vijayachander, the third respondent herein. The third respondent is stated to have complied with all the requirements for telecast of his serial under "sponsorship scheme" and the telefilm was approved for telecast of Doordarshan-1 network-there being no similarity in the proposal of the petitioner and of the third respondent. It is also pleaded that respondents 1 and 2 have earlier telecast serials made on the story of Jesus Christ under the title "Bible Ki Kahani". The allegations made against respondents 1 and 2 permitting plagiarisation of the script by the third respondent is denied as baseless. It is contended that there is no violation of the "sponsorship scheme" or any other fundamental right of the petitioner and that even the proposal of the petitioner for telecasting of the serial the "Son of Man" could be examined in accordance with the "sponsorship" guidelines. The respondents 1 and 2, in the circumstances, sought the dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Though the third respondent was represented, no objection statement was filed by him. However, in appeal, the failure to file objection statement in the writ petition is sought to be explained on the ground of lapse on the part of the third respondent and his Counsel.
10. After hearing arguments, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner's claim of respondents 1 to 3 colluding to snatch the script of the writ petitioner relating to the serial "Son of Man" was not examined on merits, being a disputed question of fact and was to be left open for adjudication in a Civil Court.
11. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the guidelines for approving the "sponsorship scheme" was not adhered to by respondents 1 and 2, while considering the proposal of third respondent and that the procedure for selection of a serial for telecast under the "sponsorship scheme" was short-circuited and in a period of just two months, the proposal has been approved permitting telecast of the serial "Dayasagar", leaving the writ petitioner to suffer discrimination. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition directing the second respondent to consider the request of the writ petitioner for approval of its script and the scenario submitted as per Annexure-H, dated 20-1-1996 and take a decision thereon expeditiously in accordance with clause (5) of the guidelines and till such time as a decision is taken by the second respondent, the telecast of the serial "Dayasagar" should be kept in abeyance.
12. This direction is assailed not only by Doordarshan in Writ Appeal No. 1815 of 1998 but also by the third respondent in Writ Appeal No. 1445 of 1998.
13. The grievance of both the respondents in the writ petition is that the writ petitioner had never made an offer under the "sponsorship scheme" and had not conformed to the requirements of the "sponsorship scheme", especially when respondents 1 and 2 had not agreed to telecast the serial/s under the "Air Time Buy" proposal of the writ petitioner.
14. Having regard to the observation of the Single Judge that the question of the allegation against the third respondent of plagiarising the petitioner's screenplay being left to be adjudicated in a Civil Court, the learned Judge could not have prevented the telecast of the serial of the third respondent, till such time as the petitioner's proposal was examined; that the learned Judge's observation that the permission to telecast the third respondent's serial in violation of the guidelines and in haste was unsupported by pleadings and/or evidence and that the order of the Single Judge, in the circumstances, was unsustainable in law.
15. The contention on behalf of the writ petitioner has been that the guidelines for "sponsorship scheme" is that proposals on the same subject should be examined together and a decision taken thereon. The proposal of the writ petitioner which was earlier in the point of time should, in any event, have been examined with the proposal of the third respondent and therefore, the decision of the respondents 1 and 2 to permit telecast of the serial produced by the third respondent is in violation of the guidelines and therefore, the decision of the learned Single Judge not to telecast the serial of the third respondent-Dayasagar till after a decision on the proposal of the writ petitioner is taken, cannot be assailed by the respondents.
16. Annexure-H is the letter of the writ petitioner dated 20th January, 1996 wherein the writ petitioner categorically made a statement that it was confining its proposal to buy "Air Time" for telecasting its international serials made in India. It is thus clear that the writ petitioner did not offer his serial under the "sponsorship scheme" though at the first instance the writ petitioner was willing to produce telefilms either on "Air Time" basis or on "sponsorship scheme" basis. It is undisputed that respondents 1 and 2 never agreed to let the writ petitioner to telecast serials to be produced by it on "Air Time Buy" basis.
17. According to respondents 1 and 2, the third respondent made his proposal under "sponsorship scheme" and was permitted to telecast the serial "Dayasaga".
18. In order that the writ petitioner and the third respondent are to be treated as similarly situated in respect of on the subject of telefilm "Jesus Christ", they should have made their proposal under the "sponsorship scheme". It hardly needs any mention that the writ petitioner had not conformed to the guidelines of the "sponsorship scheme". Respondents 1 and 2 have contested writ petitioners' compliance with the requirement of deposit of money of Rs. 2,000/- for each proposal. At the hearing before the learned Single Judge, no material was produced by the writ petitioner showing compliance with the requirements of the "sponsorship scheme". However, in the writ appeal, an attempt is sought to be made by the writ petitioner to show that he had tendered cheques of the value of Rs. 2,000/- to the Doordarshan by producing a xerox copy of the letter purportedly written by the petitioner on 25th May, 1998, Being not an admitted document, the letter showing payment of any money by cheque, in the absence of a pass book entry in favour of the writ petitioner, can hardly by received as proof of its contents. In the circumstances, the writ petitioner cannot be said to have made an offer under the "sponsorship scheme" in respect of the serial "Son of Man", when he wanted the telecasting of the serial under a proposal of "Air Time Buy", which bad not been accepted by respondents 1 and 2.
19. The writ petitioner's case and the third respondent's claim could not have been treated on the same plane, as the audience sought to be targeted by the petitioner and the third respondent were different, inasmuch as the writ petitioner initially wanted to telecast the serial on Metro Channel only and that too in English; whereas the channel in which the third respondent's serial "Dayasagar" was in Hindi language and telecast on Doordarshan channel. In the circumstances, the proposals of the writ petitioner and the third respondent bore no similarity except to the extent that they were on the subject Jesus Christ. It needs hardly mention that any number of serials could be produced on such great personalities as "Jesus Christ". This also answers the claim of the writ petitioner that the third respondent should not be allowed to telecast "Dayasagar" till his proposal is examined.
20. Even if a proposal had been made by the writ petitioner, its entitlement for consideration depended on the proposal being complete in all respects so far as stipulations contained in the "sponsorship scheme". "Air Time Buy" and "sponsorship scheme" are two distinct concepts as they relate to not only allotment of time for telecast but also for sharing the generated revenue by the telecast of the serial concerned. When on such a matter there was no concensus ad idem between respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioner, there cannot be any contention for the writ petitioner that he and the third respondent were similarly situated calling for the application of the "sponsorship scheme" guidelines.
21. In order that a proposal under the "sponsorship scheme" fructifies into an agreement for telecast of the serial, a pilot namely a sample of the serial should have been produced for the examination of the selection committee within three months from the acceptance of the proposal (script) and thereafter the selection committee should have approved the pilot as being suitable for telecast on "Doordarshan".
22. The writ petitioner did not admittedly produce a pilot- notwithstanding any technicality as to the scheme under which the petitioner sought to telecast the serial even if the script had been approved by the selection committee. The correspondence on record would show that the writ petitioner wanted a firm commitment from respondents 1 and 2 that the serial would be telecast, on the ground that the crew and equipment had to be brought from the United States of America at great cost and that the pilot could not therefore be produced. Whatever may have been the constraints of the writ petitioner, there was no way by which the writ petitioner could have bound the selection committee of the Doordarshan to telecast a serial to be produced by the writ petitioner without verification of its quality. Apparently, the respondents 1 and 2 were not willing to acceed to the claim of the writ petitioner. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the third respondent who had already produced a serial "Dayasagar" could not be equated with the writ petitioner solely on the basis of his having in his possession a script on the subject of Jesus Christ.
23. It was sought to be urged on behalf of the writ petitioner that the third respondent had not himself conform to the guidelines under the "sponsorship scheme" and he had straightaway produced the serial which was accepted by the selection committee and then permitted to be telecast. The grievance of the writ petitioner is clearly imaginary.
24. When a telefilm is produced, it is not necessary that it should be telecast through Doordarshan only. Only when a person seeks to telecast a film produced by him or seeks to produce a telefilm for telecast through the Doordarshan, he has to conform to the norms of the "sponsorship scheme" of Doordarshan. If a person independently produces a telefilm and thereafter offers the film with the script to the Doordarshan under the "sponsorship scheme", he commits no infraction of the "sponsorship scheme". All that happens is that the producer takes a risk of acceptance or rejection of a telefilm and tenders the finished product itself under the "sponsorship scheme". Such a producer of a telefilm leap-frogs others and gets a chance of his serial being cleared faster than others. A person like the third respondents who has produced a telefilm which is accepted for telecast in accordance with the norms of the "sponsorship scheme" and a person like the writ petitioner who is still vacillating as to the scheme under which he would make their offer, cannot make a grievance that the Doordarshan has violated its norms by accepting the proposal of the third respondent. The writ petitioner's grievance that the guidelines are violated by respondents 1 and 2 in not examining his proposal and the proposal of the third respondent together is clearly unfounded.
25. The learned Counsel for the respondents sought to contend that the observation of the learned Single Judge that the proposal of the third respondent regarding telecasting of "Dayasagar" was hastily concluded in violation of the norms of the "sponsorship scheme" was not based on any pleadings or material on record and cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner made a futile attempt to suggest that the pleadings in the writ petition should be regarded as challenging the clearance of "Dayasagar" as arbitrary. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner was allowed an opportunity to substantiate his claim that he has sought to attack the decision of respondents 1 and 2 to permit telecast of "Dayasagar" as being contrary to the "sponsorship scheme", but he failed to point out any such pleading in that behalf. As already observed, if the third respondent had produced a serial at his own risk, and produced the finished product which was found acceptable to Doordarshan under the "sponsorship scheme", the fact, that he had produced the telefilm independently, without prior permission of the Doordarshan, cannot constitute a violation of the "sponsorship scheme". In the circumstances, it is difficult to sustain the finding, on the material on record, that the telecast of the serial "Dayasagar" was processed in contravention of any of the clause of the "sponsorship scheme".
26. None of the grounds of the attack by the writ petitioner against the approval of the serial "Dayasagar" for telecasting can be sustained on the ground violation of the "sponsorship scheme". The writ appeals are, therefore, entitled to succeed.
27. The learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 produced material to show that they informed the writ petitioner that, notwithstanding all technicalities, respondents 1 and 2 are still prepared to examine the scripts and proposal of the writ petitioner under the "sponsorship scheme" and have also informed the writ petitioner by the communication sent by them on 6th May, 1998, that the writ petitioner may still furnish a VHS of the proposal to enable it to take further action in accordance with the Court order and informed the writ petitioner that a request for a "pilot VHS" implies approval of the script. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner sought to contend that this letter of 6th May, 1998 does not still conform to the "sponsorship scheme". We fail to understand how the letter of 6th May, 1998 may be regarded as inade-
quate assurances to the writ petitioner that the script had not yet been approved. This may indicate a reluctance on the part of the writ petitioner to avail the opportunity of having their proposal examined in accordance with the "sponsorship scheme".
28. Nevertheless in order to afford one more opportunity to the writ petitioner to conform to its "sponsorship scheme" in respect of the serials proposed by the writ petitioner, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner may submit his proposal and pilot in accordance with the "sponsorship scheme" to the authorities concerned for process within three months from the date of this order. Respondents 1 and 2 may examine the proposal and take a decision in accordance with the "sponsorship scheme". The writ petitioner can have, and has no right, to object to the telecast of the serial of the third respondent by respondents 1 and 2. It is a matter for respondents 1 and 2, to decide for how long and how many episodes of "Dayasagar", are to be telecast. The writ petitioner cannot complain, at this moment, on it. The writ appeals are allowed subject to the observations made above.