JONAKY GANGULY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
LAWS(CAL)-1994-1-35
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 17,1994

Jonaky Ganguly Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

S.P. DAS V. STALL OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
HOUSE OF LORDS IN COUNCIL OF CIVIL SERVICE UNIONS V. MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA V. AMRIK SINGH [REFERRED TO]
K. PUBLISHING HOUSE V. TRA. CO. GOVT. [REFERRED TO]
MI CHINA GURUBALU & SONS AND CO. V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
PRINCE INTERNATIONAL V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
SELVI TRAVELS V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MAHABIR AUTO STORES V. INDIAN OIL CORPN. [REFERRED TO]
STERLING COMPUTERS LTD V. M & N PUBLICATIONS LTD. [REFERRED TO]
C K ACHUTAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
A K KRAIPAK VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
D F O SOUTH KHERI VS. RAM SANEHI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
E P ROYAPPA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
ERUSIAN EQUIPMENT AND CHEMICALS LIMITED UNION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL:A K MITHIBORWALA [REFERRED TO]
HAR SHANKAR VS. DEPUTY EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMR [REFERRED TO]
KULCHHINDER SINGH VS. HARDAYAL SINGH BRAR [REFERRED TO]
S NARAYAN IYER VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RADHAKRISHNA AGARWAL VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR EASTERN GANGETIC FISHERMEN CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED VS. SIPAHI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY VS. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF HARYANA VS. JAGE RAM [REFERRED TO]
AJAY HASIA VS. KHAUID MUJIB SEHRAVARDI [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER VS. BISHWANATH TEA GO LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. LOTUS HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
BAREILLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. AJAI PAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
NEELIMA MISRA VS. HARINDER KAUR PAINTAL [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI SHRILEKHA VIDYARTHI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA VS. PROF MANUBHAI D SHAH:CINEMART FOUNDATION [REFERRED TO]
NAVJYOTI COOP GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. KAMDHENU CATTLE FEED INDUSTRIES [REFERRED TO]
U P FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. GEM CAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SERAJUDDIN AND CO VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.)This writ petition under Art. 226 is directed against the notice dated the 29th June, 1993 by which the Doordarshan Authorities of the Calcutta Doordarshan Kendra communicated their decision to discontinue the telecast of the petitioners sponsored programme Madhuri with immediate effect. The Doordarshan Kendra, Calcutta introduced an entertainment programme under the caption Madhuri in Channel-1 every Friday for a duration of 50 minutes from 6-25 p.m. with effect from 1st Jan., 1993. Initially that was an in house programme of Bengali film songs. Seeing the popularity of the said program ne Calcutta Doordarshan subsequently decided to offer the said programme to be sponsored by outside producer keeping the structure of the programme intact as per the guidelines of Doordarshan and to earn more revenue through the said programme.
(2.)By a letter dated the 17th April, 1993 the writ petitioner offered to produce Madhuri as a sponsored programme and assured that the programme produced by them would be of very high quality and would certainly enhance the existing popularity of Madhuri (vide, annexure-A to the affidavit-in-opposition). It was also mentioned in their letter that to prove their capabilities the petitioner was ready to produce an episode for preview of the Doordarshan Authorities. It is the case of the respondents that one of the main criteria for accepting offer of any sponsored programme is the technical quality of production and the manner in which it has been presented for telecast and that in the sponsored programme an outside producer is entitled to avail of a fixed free commercial time as permitted under the Doordarshan guidelines. The Doordarshan Kendra, Calcutta by its letter dated the 21st April, 1993, annexure-B to the. A. O., informed the petitioner, in response to her proposal for producing Madhuri as a sponsored programme that the said proposal was acceptable to Doordarshan, subject to submission of pilot episode for consideration/preview of the Doordarshan Authorities. It was further mentioned in the said letter that if the pilot was found acceptable/suitable for telecast the petitioner would be allotted 10 slots at a time and that for each sponsored Madhuri programme the petitioner would have to pay Doordarshan, Calcutta Rs. 20,000.00 as telecast fee. The petitioner was also requested to meet the Director, Doordarshan Kendra. Calcutta for detailed discussion. It is the contention of the respondents that the pilot submitted by the petitioner was previewed by the Preview Committee, Doordarshan Kendra, Calcutta and then the Doordarshan Authorities wrote a letter dated the 14th May, 1993 to the petitioner annexure-C to the A. O., that the petitioner might avail of the telecast time on Fridays at 6-25 p.m with effect from 21st May, 1993 and this time slot allotment was for 10 weeks, i. e.. 10 episodes with the telecast frequency of one episode per week and that the telecast fee was Rs. 20,000.00 per episode. It was however mentioned therein that this time slot allotment was subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned therein which may briefly be stated thus:-
(1) The technical quality, particularly that of film sequences and songs used should be good/telecast worthy for which it was required that the transfer to video should be properly done through 5 telecine. The technical quality of the film song portion in the pilot episode was not quite satisfactory and required improvement.

(2) The contractual formalities were required to be completed within 18th May noon.

(3) All programme material including full scripts of all episodes and the completed cassettes for 4 episodes were required to be submitted within 18th May noon and no extension in episodes or the time span given for completion ot contractual and other formalities was admissible under any circumstance.
The petitioner was asked to confirm acceptance per bearer.
(3.)It is the contention of the respondents that the writ petitioner assured the Authorities of Calcutta Doordarshan that the quality of the said sponsored programme would be improved so that the same might be telecastworthy, but inspite of repeated complaints the petitioner failed and neglected to improve their programme and make it good and telecast-worthy even upto the 5th episode. It may be noted here that in reply to the said letter of Doordarshan dated the 14th May, 1993 the petitioner addressed to Doordarshan a letter dated the 18th May, 1993, annexure-B to the writ petition, wherein it was stated inter alia, that as the petitioner was taking the slot at a short notice they were unable to shoot the balance 3 episodes and that they would be however maintaining 2 episode deposit for the first month and requested for permission in that respect. With their letter dated the 26th May, 1993. annexure-C to the writ petition, the petitioner submitted the cassette containing the 2nd episode with an assurance that ali the amendments as adviced by Doordarshan had been made to the satisfaction of the latter. Annexure D to the A. O. is a letter from Doordarshan to the petitioner dated the 27th May, 1993 wherein it was stated that Madhuri episode-2 scheduled for telecast on 28th May, 1993 had been previewed and it was found that the Audio and Video quality was not upto the mark and there was much more scope of [improvement as more or less picture seemed to be de-focussed and audio muffled and in some of the songs there was loss of frames which, in turn, was affecting songs. Certain other defects and undesirable aspects found in the episode-2 were also mentioned in the said letter. In order to avoid repetition of songs the petitioner was asked to submit henceforward list of songs of every episode of the programme. It was once again emphasised that a lot need to be done to improve upon the quality of both audio and video in the interest of viewers.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.