The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by empanelled television programme producers seeking release of 50% of the approved budget and commissioning of their programmes for DD Kashir, holding that mere empanelment or script approval does not confer any enforceable right in the absence of a concluded contract. Justice Amit Sharma held that payments under the applicable Doordarshan guidelines become payable only upon signing of an agreement and final approval by the Directorate General, Doordarshan.
The case arose from a dispute between empanelled television programme producers and Doordarshan over the release of funds and commissioning of programmes for DD Kashir. The petitioners had been empanelled as producers and had submitted programme proposals under the then-existing guidelines, pursuant to which their scripts were approved at an initial stage. However, no production agreement was ever executed with them. Subsequently, Doordarshan constituted an expert committee to review 104 pending programme proposals to assess their contemporary relevance and suitability for telecast, following which 91 proposals were approved and taken forward, while the petitioners’ programmes were not recommended.
The petitioners contended that they were entitled to 50% of the approved budget upon script approval, alleging arbitrary diversion of funds and discriminatory treatment.
Rejecting the claim, the Court noted that while the petitioners had been empanelled and their scripts had been approved at an initial stage, no agreement for production had ever been executed with them. The Court took note of the express terms of empanelment, which clarified that empanelment did not create any right to produce commissioned programmes and that Doordarshan retained discretion to alter or discontinue commissioning decisions. It further noted that a second expert committee constituted to reassess pending proposals found the petitioners’ scripts to be neither contemporary nor suitable for telecast, leading to their exclusion from the final list of approved programmes.
The Court held that under the applicable guidelines, release of 50% of the budget was contingent upon fulfilment of two conditions, script approval and signing of an agreement. Failure to satisfy either condition disentitled the petitioners from claiming payment. It also observed that the petitioners had neither challenged the constitution nor the recommendations of the expert committee, nor demonstrated any arbitrariness or malafides in the decision-making process.
Finding no concluded contract and no violation of the guidelines, the Court declined to issue any direction for release of funds or commissioning of programmes and dismissed the petition.
Appearances
Petitioners- Ms. Prity Sharma, Advocate. with Petitioner Nos.17 & 18 inperson.
Respondents- Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Ms. Katyani Joshi & Mr. Prabhakar Mishra, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Abhishek Birthray, Mr. Chandan Sharma & Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocates for R-2 & 3.
