IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 16820 of 2008(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- SREELAL DEVRAJ, S/O.DEVARAJAN, VASANTHA NIVAS, MALAYAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHALACHITHRA KALABHAVAN, VAZHUTHAKAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 014. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (PUBLIC RELATIONS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC RELATIONS, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R1 SRI.A.ABDUL KHARIM FOR R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.16820/2008 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1; COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 30/12/2004 ISSUED BY CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION. EXT.P2; COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.5/98/PR DTD. 10/03/98 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KSFDC/CS/DOC./18/2007 DTD. 20/09/2007 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.16820 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be a film producer and director of a documentary film 'KARUNA' stated to be on charity work done by one Dr.Kurian John Melamparambil. Apparently, he utilised the facilities of Chitranjali studio complex. Petitioner submits that he had in mind the subsidy made available to those persons who utilise the service of chitranjali studio as contemplated by Exhibit-P2 Government Order. Petitioner's claim was considered and rejected under Exhibit-P3. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows: “We are sorry to inform you that the Subsidy Screening Committee has decided not to consider the Documentary for Govt. subsidy considering the fact that the Documentary highlights the Corporate Social responsibility activities of a private business film producing and marketing consumer products for profit.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. It is stated that Government have W.P ( C) No.16820 of 2008 2 constituted a committee for the purpose of deciding the eligibility of subsidy. It is headed by the Secretary of the Cultural Affairs Department as the Chairman. There is also a Review Committee. The committee viewed the film on 24.7.2007. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 4. No doubt the Government have the right to deny the subsidy if they are not satisfied with the standard and quality. But that is not the reason stated in Exhibit-P3. In the result, Exhibit-P3 is quashed to the extent to which the petitioner's claim for subsidy was rejected and the 1st respondent shall re-consider the same, in accordance with law and take a decision thereon with notice to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.16820 of 2008 3 W.P ( C) No.16820 of 2008 4