IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24687 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.R.GOVINDANKUTTY, 2B, SILVER GLADOS, WATER FRONT ROAD, ELAMKULAM, KADAVANTHARA P.O., COCHIN 682 020, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUMA RAVIKUMAR @ SUMANGALI, 23, SREE CHITHRA, HARITHA NAGAR, CHOVARAMBALAM P.O., CALICUT-17. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DOORADARSHAN KENDRA, KUDAPPANAKUNU, TRIVANDRUM, 3. K.P.THOMAS, GOOTH, 39/5831, PARAMBITHARA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-36. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.S.SUJIN,SC DOORDARSHAN KENDRA,TVM FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24687 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th September, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be a copy right holder in respect of the literary work “Oru Desathinte Katha” written by Late Sri.S.K.Pottakkad. Apparently, several years ago, a proposal was placed before the Doordarshan for production of a tele serial, based on the said literary work. According to the petitioner, after having availed of financial facility from the bank, preliminary work was also started and expenditure was incurred. But in the mean while, their arose a copy right dispute between one of the legal heirs of the original author and the alleged assignee. Taking note of the pendency of this dispute, Doordarshan opined that it would not be advisable to carry on with the production work as such. It seems that petitioner obtained copy right to the work in question subsequently and further submits that at present, there is no copy right issue in respect of the said work. Petitioner has approached Doordarshan seeking formal sanction W.P.(C) No.24687 of 2008 2 for continuing with the production of the tele serial based on the above mentioned literary work. Ext.P6 representation has not evoked any response and hence the writ petition. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents. In the facts and circumstances narrated above, it is only appropriate that petitioner's request as contained in Ext.P6 representation is looked into. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation and take appropriate decision thereon, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V. GIRI, JUDGE nj.