Dhruv Films & Ors. v. D D Urdu

8. On 09.01.2023, it was stated by the Respondent that some communications had been issued to Petitioner No. 1/applicant and sought time of 4 (four) working days to place the said communications on record, along with the affidavit of the competent Officer. The said communication NEGI

18.26 and the relevant portion of the affidavit of the Respondent dated 02.01.2023 is reproduced as under: - Communication dated 09.01.2023 *** *** *** Affidavit dated 02.01.2023

9. On 24.01.2023, late Shri Om Sehgal, proprietor of the Petitioner NO. 1/applicant, had sought time to place on record certain documents, alongwith an application, to demonstrate that the work order could have been issued in favour of Petitioner No. 1.

10. Subsequent thereto, another application, CM APPL. 11405/2023, under Section 151 of the CPC, was filed on behalf of the Petitioner NO. 1/applicant, seeking the following prayers: - “a) Issue direction to the Respondent to provide the work order for commissioning of the serial "Zamein Dekh Falak Dekh Jahan Dekh", with number of episodes as per the provisions of Guidelines of Prasar Bharati, at current and prevailing rates. b) Pass an order that the Respondent may pay me 'A compensation of Rs 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lac) for mental torcher, tension and harassment be given to me through their unethical and vindictive acts. c) Pass any such further or other order that this Hon'ble Court deems fit. And proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” NEGI

18.26 The Petitioner No. 1/applicant in support of the aforesaid application, had further placed on record several documents to demonstrate that work order could have been issued in favour of Petitioner No. 1/applicant.

11. Subsequent thereto, another application, CM APPL. 61727/2023, under Section 151 of the CPC, was filed on behalf of the Petitioner No.1 /applicant, seeking the following reliefs: - “a) Issue direction to the Respondent to issue the work order for commissioning of the serial "Zamein Dekh Falak Dekh Jahan Dekh", under DAP Category with number of episodes as per the provisions of Guidelines of Prasar Bharati, at current and prevailing Rates. b) give me the serials of the same amount in the acquisition category. c) CEO/DG may use their powers to adjust my serial anywhere in 44 channels in commissioned category/DAP/Acquisition category d) Pass any such further or other order that this Hon'ble Court Deems fit and proper, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

12. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the present applications, the proprietor of Petitioner No. 1, Shri Om Sehgal, had passed away on 07.12.2023 and an application, CM APPL. 75197/2024, under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC was preferred on behalf of the legal heirs of late Shri Om Sehgal, which was allowed vide order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Worthy Joint Registrar, and the Petitioners No. 2 and 3 were impleaded. NEGI

18.26

13. Thereafter, in pursuance of an order dated 01.09.2025 passed by this Court, the Respondent had filed a compliance affidavit dated 15.09.2025, authored by Ms. Chetna Relhan, Section Officer, Doordarshan, and the same is reproduced as under: - NEGI 18.26 NEGI 18.26 NEGI 18.26

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

14. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Respondent had failed to comply with the directions as contained in the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Predecessor Bench of this Court, whereby, the Respondent was directed to consider Petitioner No. 1’s programme in the category of “Animation” on merits and in accordance with the applicable guidelines and notifications, and thereafter, take a further decision within 4 weeks and communicate the same to the Petitioners.

15. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the latter’s programme titled as "Zameen Dekh, Falak Dekh, Jahan Dekh" was submitted pursuant to a notification issued by the Respondent for commissioning programmes on a fixed-budget basis for DD Urdu. It was further submitted that the said programme was submitted under the category mentioned under serial No. 19 of the said notification, i.e., “A programme series based on mind boggling puzzles especially in the field of scientific research and development that generally overwhelm us intellectually, emotionally and psychologically”. It was further submitted that Petitioner No. 1 had specifically mentioned in its proposal that the said programme was being made as a tele-serial in the genre/format of Animation. It was further submitted that the said genre/category was placed at serial No. 14 in the genre wise break-up list dated 15.11.2011, and his proposal was the only one received by the Respondent under the said category. It was further submitted that the proposal was evaluated by a committee comprising three experts, all of whom assessed and recommended the same under the Animation category. NEGI

18.26

16. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that despite the aforesaid position, the Respondent while publishing the list of selected programmes in the year 2012, had arbitrarily placed the Petitioner No. 1’s proposal in the category of "Fiction" at Serial No. 118. It was further contended that thereafter the Respondent had resorted to inconsistent stands regarding the categorisation of Petitioner No. 1’s programme. Initially, in response to an RTI application, the Respondent had stated that the proposal had been placed in the category of "Quiz", and thereafter, upon Petitioner No. 1 pointing out that another proposal with lower marks had been selected even in that category, the Respondent changed its stand and stated that commissioning could not be granted to both the Petitioner No. 1 (through proprietor late Shri. Om Sehgal) and Petitioner No. 3, i.e., son of late Shri. Om Sehgal, who had also submitted a proposal.

17. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that it was only pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Predecessor Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.01.2020, that the Respondent had placed Petitioner No. 1’s/applicant’s programme in the category of Animation. It was further submitted that pursuant to the said order, the Respondent issued a communication dated 24.02.2020 acknowledging that the Petitioner NO. 1’s/applicant’s proposal had been shifted from the category of Fiction to Animation, and the same had been placed at serial No. 1 in the Animation category. However, despite the aforesaid recategorization, no consequential decision was taken by the Respondent. NEGI

18.26

18. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that once the proposal stood categorised under the Animation genre, and placed at serial No. 1, the natural consequence thereof was issuance of a work order in accordance with the commissioning process. It was argued that despite repeated representations and despite the order dated 31.01.2020 directing the Respondent to take a further decision in accordance with the applicable guidelines, the Respondent had failed to take any further action towards commissioning the programme.

19. It was further submitted that Petitioner No. 1’s/applicant’s proposal was the only proposal approved under the Animation genre and had been placed at Serial No. 1 in the merit list. It was contended that while 164 shortlisted proposals had been granted work orders, Petitioner NO. 1’s/applicant’s proposal had not been accorded similar treatment. It was further submitted that the Respondent, instead of taking a final decision, repeatedly informed Petitioner No. 1/applicant that the work order would be issued only upon approval of a subsequent list of proposals and availability of funds, and the said stand was arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Predecessor Bench.

20. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that although the programme was placed at serial No. 1 in the Animation category, pursuant to the order dated 31.01.2020, the said decision was communicated to him only on 09.01.2023. It was contended that the conduct of the Respondent demonstrated a continuous attempt to deprive the Petitioners of the benefits arising out of commissioning process and the same was done mala fide. NEGI

18.26

21. It was thus submitted that the Respondent had failed to take "further decision" as directed vide order dated 31.01.2020, and had merely undertaken a formal recategorization exercise, without granting consequential relief.

22. Learned counsel for the Petitioners had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indibility Creative Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Government of West Bengal & Ors[1], and particularly on the following paragraphs: -

23. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the applicable Guidelines for consideration, processing and approval of commissioned Programmes for Telecast on Doordarshan Channels provided different modes for commissioning programmes, including the Single Stage Process (SSP) and the Direct Assignment Process (DAP). It was contended that even after Petitioner No. 1’s/applicant’s programme was placed in the Animation category, pursuant to the order dated 31.01.2020, the Respondent could have considered the same under the aforesaid modes. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further argued that there was no impediment in issuing a work order in their favour, and the Respondent ought to have exercised the powers NEGI

18.26 available under the Guidelines to commission the programme. The said modes of commissioning are reproduced as under: - “MODES OF COMMISSIONING

1. Doordarshan may commission programmes in one of the following modes: a) Single Stage Process (SSP): Doordarshan may invite programme proposals on identified themes/ subjects from eligible producers through advertisement and decision regarding programme assignment would be taken after evaluating the proposals received. b) Direct Assignment process (DAP): Doordarshan may commission programme(s) directly from eminent Producers/ Directors/ Production Houses on such terms and conditions and in respect of such topics/ subjects as it may deem fit, in fields where these eminent producers/ directors/ production houses have a proven record.

2. Whenever it is decided to commission programmes from outside producers, DG, DG, Doordarshan (DG, DO) would decide the mode of commissioning to be followed. Direct Assignment would be done through a Committee chaired by the DG. The Committee will include the DG, Doordarshan, two Programme DDGs (including the channel manager), one outside expert to be approved by Production & Content Committee of the Prasar Bharati. The panel will be valid for a specified period. All such direct assignment will, thereafter, be submitted to the board for information.

3. The procedure for commissioning programmes under SSP is explained in the following paragraphs. The procedure for commissioning under DAP shall be determined by the Committee chaired by the DG.”

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

24. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the directions as contained in order dated 31.01.2020 stood duly complied with. It was further submitted that the learned Predecessor Bench while disposing of the present petition, had not returned any findings of mala fide on the part of the Respondent. It was further submitted that NEGI

18.26 pursuant to the said order, Petitioner No. 1’s/applicant’s programme was recategorized from the category of “Fiction” to “Animation” and was placed at serial No. 1. It was further submitted that Prasar Bharti had received 580 proposals which were shortlisted for DD Urdu, and out of those, only 164 programmes have been processed as per the requirement of the channel and availability of funds. It was further submitted that the same had been duly communicated to the Petitioner vide letter dated 24.02.2020, which reads as under: - NEGI

18.26

25. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submitted that the proposals were invited under a time bound scheme of commissioning of the proposals of DD Urdu, which was financed by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, under the revenue plan funds. It was further submitted that under the said scheme 1046 proposals were received, out of which 580 proposals were shortlisted. It was further submitted that owing to financial constraints, programming requirements and limitation on slotting, only 164 proposals were processed and commissioned, on the basis of availability of funds and channel requirement.

26. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submitted that the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting had provided funds only for the said 164 proposals, and thereafter, the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting had declined to allocate funds for the remaining shortlisted proposals, on the ground that the scheme was time-bound and had already run its course. Consequently, a decision was taken by the competent authority in Prasar Bharati to cancel the remaining portion of the scheme, including Petitioner No. 1’s/applicant’s proposal and the said decision was further communicated to Petitioner No. 1/applicant through e-mail dated 09.01.2023, as reproduced hereinbefore.

27. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submitted that the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Predecessor Bench had only directed the Respondent to consider the Petitioner No. 1’s/applicant’s programme in the category of Animation and take further decision in accordance with the applicable guidelines. It was further submitted that the said order did not NEGI

18.26 direct issuance of a work order in favour of the Petitioner No. 1/applicant. Learned counsel for the Respondent had further submitted that once Petitioner No. 1’s/applicant’s proposal was considered in the Animation category, and a decision was taken regardiing closure of the scheme, the directions issued by this Court stood fully complied with.

28. Learned counsel for the Respondent further argued that the Petitioners’ reliance on the DAP and SSP modes of commissioning was misplaced. It was submitted that the Guidelines only provide the broad framework for commissioning of programmes, while the actual commissioning requirements are governed by the concerned advertisement/notification. It was further submitted that the notification in question merely specified the preferred genres/themes and did not oblige the Respondent to commission a programme in each genre. In support of the said submission, learned counsel pointed out that even in the Education category, a proposal received by the Respondent was not commissioned. It was also submitted that DD Urdu, as a matter of policy, is presently not commissioning programmes under either the DAP or SSP modes.

29. Learned counsel for the Respondent further drew attention of this Court to the Guidelines for consideration, processing and approval of commissioned Programmes for Telecast on Doordarshan Channels, to contend that the commissioning process was governed by the said Guidelines. It was submitted that the Guidelines themselves reserve discretion in favour of Doordarshan with regard to the number and nature of programmes to be NEGI

18.26 commissioned, and the relevant portion of the said Guidelines is reproduced as under: -

30. Learned counsel for the Respondent further argued that the present applications as filed by Petitioner No. 1/applicant, seek a substantive direction for issuance of work order and compensation, which reliefs cannot be granted in a disposed of writ petition. It was further contended that if the Petitioners were aggrieved by the subsequent decision cancelling the scheme, then the appropriate remedy was to challenge the said decision independently, in accordance with law, and not by seeking re-adjudication of the disposed of writ petition.

ANALYSIS

31. The present petition was filed seeking the following reliefs: - “a) Issue writ in nature of mandamus and direct the Respondent to provide the work order for commissioning of the serial "Zameen Dekh, Falak Dekh, Jahaan Dekh" in the animation genre/format at the current prevailing rates. b) Issue writ in nature of certiorari and quash / set aside the impugned letter / decision dated 8th April 2019 as illegal and arbitrary. c) Pass any such further or other order that this Hon'ble Courts deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” NEGI

18.26

32. As already noted hereinbefore, that the present petition was disposed of vide order dated 31.01.2020, thereby directing the Respondent to consider the programme of Petitioner No. 1/applicant in the category of “Animation” on merits and in accordance with their guidelines and notifications, and the decision thereupon to be informed to Petitioner No. 1/applicant within a period of four weeks. By way of the present applications, Petitioner NO. 1/applicant is reiterating the initial prayer made in the present writ petition with regard to commissioning of its programme in the Animation genre/format.

33. It is pertinent to note that in response to the present writ petition, the Respondent herein had taken a categorial stand in the following terms: -

35. Although the petition was disposed of by observing that the categorisation of Petitioner No. 1’s/applicant’s programme in the genre of fiction was wrong, and therefore, it was directed that the said programme be considered in the category of Animation on merits in accordance with guidelines, but there was no direction to issue a work order. It is a matter of record that initially out of 1046 proposals, a total of 580 proposals were shortlisted and out of the said 580 proposals, 164 proposals were processed across all genres. It is also matter of record that initially the programme of Petitioner No. 1/applicant was placed at serial no. 118 in the category of fiction, out of the shortlisted 580 proposals, which included other categories as well. The first list of 164 proposals was in respect of all categories/genres which have been placed on record by the Respondent alongwith affidavit dated 15.09.2025. In the category of ‘Fiction’, first 79 proposals were commissioned and at that particular point of time, petitioners’/applicants’ programme was at serial No. 118. After passing of the aforesaid order dated 31.01.2020, Petitioner No. 1/applicant was informed vide communication dated 24.02.2020 that for the remaining 421 proposals out of 580 proposals, an agenda note had been sent to Prasar Bharti, which had been placed before the board meeting and as soon as the final decision for processing the same is taken and funds are available, the work order will be issued accordingly.

36. By way of affidavit dated 15.09.2025, filed in pursuance of the order dated 01.09.2025, the Respondent had stated that subsequently on 04.12.2021, the decision was taken by CEO Prasar Bharti to cancel all the remaining short- NEGI

18.26 listed proposals, which included the programme of the Petitioner NO. 1/applicant and the said decision was communicated to the Petitioner NO. 1/applicant on 09.01.2023. A complete set of noting on the said subject was also filed alongwith the said affidavit. It is the case of the Respondent that the scheme of commissioning of proposals for DD Urdu channel was financed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting under the revenue plan funds. It was stated that the said Ministry had allocated funds to the approved 164 proposals. Later on, however, due to paucity of funds, the Ministry refused to allocate further funds for the remaining 421 proposals. The said refusal by the authority also recorded that “it was a time bound scheme and now it is closed.”

37. It is the case of Petitioner No. 1/applicant that initially the programme was wrongly categorised under “Fiction”, and under the genre of “Animation” his was the only proposal. Therefore, on account of wrong categorisation, Petitioner No. 1’s/applicant’s proposal was not accepted and work order was not issued. However, as pointed out hereinbefore, the categorical stand of the Respondent was that the proposal of Petitioner No. 1/applicant was considered under the genre of “Fiction” on account of the fact that the committee had taken a decision that having regard to revenue earnings of DD Urdu Channel, a costly animation at the rate of Rs. 4.[5] lakhs per episode was not justified and the same was bona fide programming decision, which was available to them under clause 5 of the aforesaid guidelines. Moreover, the present petition with the prayer for issuing work order to the Petitioner No. 1/applicant under the category of animation, was disposed of by observing that his case be NEGI

18.26 proceeded in accordance with law, under the categorisation of “Animation” for processing his proposal under the said category.

38. It is settled law that this Court under the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not interfere with the decisions for awarding compensation/work order and issue of writ of mandamus, directing the Respondent to issue a work order in favour of Petitioner NO. 1/applicant. Once the competent authority has taken a decision based on the guidelines, in absence of any unfairness/arbitrariness in the said decision, this Court will not interfere with the same. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in Himalayan Flora and Aromas Ltd. v. MCD[2] wherein it was held as under: -

55. The doctrine of judicial restraint, which is central to this discussion, emphasises that courts should exercise caution and avoid involvement in policy decisions, as these are complex judgments that require a balancing of diverse and often competing interests. Policies are crafted based on thorough analysis of social, economic, and political factors, considerations beyond the court's purview. The court is tasked with ensuring that policies do not breach constitutional provisions or statutory limits; however, they should not replace policy-makers’ judgments with their own unless absolutely necessary

56. Policy decisions often require the expertise of professionals and specialists in fields such as economics, public health, national security, and environmental science. These domains involve specialised knowledge that Judges, as generalists in legal matters, may lack. For instance, in economic policy, the executive may decide on trade tariffs or subsidies based on extensive data and projections that aim to balance domestic industry support with global trade commitments. The courts, lacking the same level of economic expertise and without the authority to make trade-offs among competing policy objectives, are typically not equipped to second- guess these kinds of decisions.

57. While courts have the power of judicial review to ensure that executive actions and legislative enactments comply with the Constitution, this power is not absolute. Judicial review is meant to act as a safeguard against actions that overstep legal boundaries or infringe on fundamental rights, but it does not entail a comprehensive re-evaluation of the policy’s wisdom. The judicial review of policy decisions is limited to assessing the legality of the NEGI

18.26 decision-making process rather than the substantive merits of the policy itself. For example, if a government policy infringes on fundamental rights or discriminates against a particular group, the courts have a duty to strike down such policies. However, in the absence of constitutional or legal violations, the courts should respect the policy choices made by the executive or legislature.

58. The duty of the court in policy-related cases is primarily to determine whether the policy falls within the scope of the authority granted to the relevant body. If the policy decision is within the executive’s legal authority and has been made following proper procedures, the courts should defer to the expertise and discretion of the policy-makers, even if the policy appears unwise or imprudent. This restraint ensures that the courts do not impose its own perspective on policy matters that are rightly the responsibility of other branches. xxx xxx xxx

60. The courts should assume that policy-makers act in good faith unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. As long as the policy does not contravene the Constitution or violate statutory provisions, it is not the role of the courts to question the wisdom or fairness of such policy. Xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied)

18. It is trite law that an interference with the decision/policy of the authorities would not be warranted, unless it is found that the said decision/policy is palpably arbitrary, malafide, irrational or violative of the statutory provisions. (See: Para 64, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority and Others Versus Shakuntala Education and Welfare Society and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 655)” An appeal, LPA 351/2025, against the aforesaid judgment by the petitioner/appellant therein was dismissed by the learned Division Bench of this Court[3]. 2025:DHC:4454-DB NEGI

18.26

39. Admittedly, after the passing of the order dated 31.01.2020, no other shortlisted programme has been approved by the competent authority. It cannot be said that only Petitioner No.1’s/applicant’s programme was not sanctioned and while some other programmes on the same list were sanctioned. It is also pertinent to note that the proposal of Petitioner NO. 1/applicant was at best shortlisted, and that itself cannot be treated as creating a vested right for final approval of the said programme. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for Petitioner No. 1/applicant with respect to compensation is concerned, it is pertinent to note that by way of affidavit dated 09.10.2025 filed in compliance of the order dated 15.09.2025, it has come on record that decision to cancel the remaining shortlisted proposal was taken on 04.12.2021 and the Petitioner No. 1/applicant was communicated the same on 09.01.2023. It is further pertinent to note that this decision was communicated to the Petitioner No. 1/applicant upon filing of the CM APPL. 528/2022 under Section 151 of the CPC, and upon notice being issued by learned Predecessor Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.03.2023. There has been absolutely no explanation brought on record by the Respondent as to why the decision taken on 04.12.2021 was not communicated to the Petitioner No. 1/applicant in terms of order dated 31.01.2020.

40. In totality of the facts and circumstances, although this Court is of the considered opinion that no directions can be given to the Respondent to issue work order for commissioning of Petitioner No. 1’s/applicant’s programme; however, there has been unexplained delay in compliance of the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Predecessor Bench of this Court. In these NEGI

18.26 circumstances, the Petitioners are ordered a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by Respondent within a period of two weeks from today.

41. The applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

42. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.

AMIT SHARMA (JUDGE) JUNE 30, 2026/nk/db NEGI

18.26