HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No. 13991 of 2000 DATE: 06-02-2008 Between: Telugu Cinema Telecasters Association ……………… Petitioner and 1. The Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Information and Broadcasting Department, Shastri Bhavan, NEW DELHI – 110 001 and others. ………….. Respondents HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No. 13991 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Association seeking to declare the action of the second respondent in allowing telecasting of Telugu Feature Films in arrangement with NFDC Ltd., i.e., the third respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional as opposed to Articles 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and to direct the fourth respondent to implement the decision of the Hon’ble Minister for Information & Broadcasting, Government of India to telecast Telugu Feature Films on DD-8 Channel on Royalty basis. 2. The grievance of the petitioner Association is that the fourth respondent is not allowing their Feature Films telecasted while allowing the films with NFDC Ltd by making arrangement to telecast the films. The petitioner Association represented before the Hon’ble Minister for Information and Broadcasting and requested him to intervene in the matter and issue suitable directions to the fourth respondent for resuming telecast of Telugu Feature films on DD-8 channel (Satellite) on the same old royalty scheme. The Hon’ble Minister was pleased to consider their representation and sent a communication to the President of the Petitioner Association. The fourth respondent appears to have informed that due to non-availability of funds, Doordarshan Kendra, Hyderabad, was not in a position to telecast films on royalty basis for the same time. The funds have now been released to Doordarshan Kendra and Prasara Bharathi have asked the Kendra to resume telecast of Telugu films on royalty basis. The fourth respondent received the communication on 14-07-2000 from the Director General, Doordarshan, New Delhi to telecast the feature films in arrangement with NFDC Ltd., Mumbai. The Director was asked to formalize this arrangement with NFDC Ltd, Chennai and start telecasting of films from 01-08-2000. The petitioner Association is very much surprised to know about the said communication from the first respondent to the fourth respondent. 3. The petitioner Association contended that the above arrangement with NFDC Ltd would ruin the Telugu Feature Films as well as the petitioner Association, who have already sunk several crores of rupees for acquiring telecast rights for various Telugu films. Previously, there was an arrangement in the Doordarshan Kendra where both NFDC Ltd as well as the members of the petitioner Association were telecasting Telugu Feature films on DD-8 channel on royalty basis. The said arrangement ought to have been continued. Now, it is stated in the impugned order that NFDC will be paid Rs.35,000/- for telecasting each film. The members of the petitioner Association also are willing to offer their films for the same amount to Doordarshan Kendra, Hyderabad. If the petitioner Association was not given an opportunity, it will suffer great hardship. Hence, the writ petition seeking the above directions. 4. The respondents in their counter affidavit mentioned that it is will known to the petitioners that the revenue earned by Doordarshan upto 31-03-2000 was credited to Consolidated Fund of India and it cannot be used by Doordarshan (Prasar Bharati) for its own expenditure. From 01-04-2000 onwards, as an autonomous corporation in the financial system, the Prasar Bharati has to earn its own revenue for the software and there is an accredited period of 45 to 60 days being given to the accredited agencies for paying the advertisements money to the Prasar Bharati for the commercial spots telecast over Doordarshan. So, the money flow is not immediately available to Prasar Bharati, which will in turn distribute to the Kendras based on their needs. Not only funds for royalty, even sufficient funds for artistes payments were also not available. Against the requirement of Rs.1 crore for artistes payment, only Rs.35 lakhs have been provided so far. The actual requirement of royalty amunt is Rs.2.5 crores minimum, but only Rs.89 lakhs have been provided by our Directorate. In these circumstances, Prasar Bharati has taken a policy decision to maintain uniformity in royalty rates payable for feature films telecast over all Southern Kendras and to acquire films through NFDC which is an enterprise under the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. The policy decision taken by the Prasar Bharati will save the expenditure being spent as royalty amount for acquiring feature films and earn revenue by giving open bidding to the private producers/right holders to telecast and market their own films on Doordarshan by paying a fixed amount for the slot to Doordarshan. The NFDC is already exclusively supplying the films for the Regional Doordarshan Satellite Channels at Chennai, Bangalore, Thiruvananthapuram since 1995. Prasar Bharati has taken a policy decision to maintain uniformity in royalty rates payable for feature films telecast over all Southern Kendras and to acquire films through NFDC, therefore, without budget sanction, the concerned three Kendras continued uninterrupted telecast of films on their satellite channels as it was only a book adjustment for NFDC. In the light of the above circumstances, if the petitioner supplies films to NFDC, the respondents have no objection either for NFDC or Doordarshan for telecast of such films, as there could not be any financial loss or hardship to the petitioner Association. 5. The policy decision taken by the Prasar Bharati has been elaborately explained by the respondents and in pursuance of the policy decision only, they were entrusting the telecasting of the films to NFDC. The petitioner and other similar organizations also telecast their films by paying the prescribed amount of royalty and in the light of the circumstances explained regarding the loss, the petitioner Association cannot seek any direction to the respondents to allow them to continue to telecast the films at the royalty rates, which used to be given previously. 6. In the light of the above circumstances explained by the respondents, I do not find any illegality in the letters addressed by the respondents to the petitioner Association from time to time and there are no grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court to issue any directions to the respondents in this regard. 7. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Dr. G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date:06-02-2008 YCR