B.M.MITRA - (1.) The connected writ petition has been filed at the instance of M/s. Rainbow Production Private Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act and one Miss Soma Mukherjee, one of the Directors of the petitioner No. 1 Company against Prasad Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India), a body corporate and its numerous office-bearers who are figuring as respondents in the said writ petition. It appears from the perusal of the prayer portion of the connected writ petition that manifold prayers are made, inter alia, for a declaration that Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) being an autonomous body cannot stall and/or amend any concluded contract entered between any citizen and the corporation and cannot at any stage withhold and/or withdraw its public commitments and for a further writ of Mandamus to give effect to an earlier decision taken by the former Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharati which was communicated to the Doordarshan Kendra, Calcutta and also to the petitioners vide letter dated 25-7-98 issued by the Deputy Director General of Eastern Region and for withdrawing and/or reversing the said decision in July, 1998 by the former CEO of the Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation and also for a further writ of Mandamus to withdraw the case for finally approving of the proposal by way of scuttling the programme proposed to be telecast on DD-1 and DD-7 channel of Calcutta Doordarshan Kendra on 5-10-98 and also for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for transmission of the records and also for an order of injunction restraining the Chief Executive Officer (Acting) from referring the decision of the petitioners to the Prasar Bharati Board and to forthwith give effect to the decision taken by the former officer of Prasar Bharati Broadcasting of India vide letter dated 25-7-98 and for other ancillary reliefs.
(2.) Before dilating about the detailed developments of subsequent stages during the pendency of the writ petition in details, it appears that in the writ petition an order was passed by the learned single Judge on 22-9-1998. From the perusal of which it appears that certain steps were taken in the matter to allot time for holding a programme known as 'Khas Khabar' at DD-1 and DD-7 channel of Calcutta centre of Doordarshan. It has been observed in the said order that from the documents it appears that it was settled in between the parties that the proposals are already crystallised and the respondent Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India has already written to the petitioners about the commercial term to be applicable for telecast for programme at DD-1 (6-10 p.m. to 6-20 p.m.) at Doordarshan Kendra, Calcutta. It further appears that steps have been taken to hold such programme and the petitioner has spent some amount of money to give effect to the said order by letter issued from Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India. The first programme of such 'Khas Khabar' is to be telecast on and from 5-10-98 and after programme is about to be implemented if any other contrary steps are taken on behalf of the respondents, the respondents would suffer loss and damages. In view of the narration of the same, the learned single Judge has directed that no steps would be taken by the respondents for cancellation of such programme which has already been fixed by the authorities concerned to be telecast on and from 5-10-1998 from DD-1 channel. In view of the urgency, Rule 27A of the Writ Rules of the Original Side of provisions of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India of the Calcutta High Court have been invoked and in consideration of such urgency has been dispensed with. The learned Judge has passed an order of injunction restraining the Prasar Bharati not to take any further step in this matter or from interfering with telecasting of Bengali news and current affairs programme which is known as 'Khas Khabar'. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench comprising of V. K. Gupta and Sujit Barman Roy, JJ. by an order dated 17-11-98 there was mention not only about the order dated 22-9-98 but also the subsequent order followed which was passed on 25-9-98 which came by way of reconsideration of the earlier order. It also appears in the said order of the appeal Court that the fact remains that before 22-9-98 the date when the order was passed by the learned single Judge the programme had not gone on the air and it went on air only on 5-10-98. The Appeal Court took into consideration the state of events which are continued from 5-10-98 as the programme of 'Khas Khabar' has already started for being telecast through Doordarshan from 5-10-98 onwards and in consideration of the suggestion of the learned counsel of the contesting parties, the Appeal Court directed that as the programme went on the air from 5-10-98 and in consideration of keeping in view the balance of convenience an order was passed to the effect that the Appeal Court itself should dispose of the writ petition. It has been further commented upon that in view of telecasting of the programme for a duration of one month and half and no prejudice will be caused to the parties if it is allowed to be telecast for some time more. Accordingly, the Appeal Court directed the writ petition, application for stay and appeal to be heard together by the Division Bench. The writ petitioners were given leave to file supplementary affidavit to the writ application and the appellants figuring as respondents filed their affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply may be filed to the same. The matter was directed to appear before the Division Bench and the same was subject to the condition that the writ petitioners would be required to go on paying an amount of Rs. 40,000/- per day to the appellants herein in terms of the aforesaid direction passed by the predecessor Bench of the Appellate Jurisdiction of this Court. The connected writ petition, the application for stay and the appeal, all are directed to be disposed of analogously.
(3.) The same was followed by another order passed on 9-10-98 by a Bench constituted of G.R. Bhattacharjee and Amitabha Lala, JJ. by an order dated 9-10-98 and the Court in the said order has observed that to avoid any scope of multiplicity of proceeding that if any decision taken by way of review in the matter by the authority of Prasar Bharati is taken in the meantime that will not be given effect to by the concerned authority without leave of the Appeal Court during pendency of the appeal.;