1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 83 OF 2010 Supriyo Sen & Ors. ... Petitioners. vs. Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondents. Mr. Mihir Desai for the petitioners. Mr. J.P. Awasia with N. Engineer and A.R. Varma for respondent nos.1 to 4. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, ACTING, C.J. & B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to screen the three films directed by the petitioners, in the 11th Mumbai International Film Festival in the competitive segment. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition basically contending that in the film festival organised by respondent no. 4 the films which have been selected are not selected objectively. Mr. Desai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that no objective 2 criteria or guidelines have been laid down for the selection of the film. He submits that the films which are selected are not upto the marks. It is the contention of the petitioners that the films of which, names given in the petition, conforms to the international standards and, as such, they ought to have been selected for the International Film Festival. Though certain allegations are made against certain members of the selection committee in the affidavit-in-rejoinder, we are not inclined to permit the petitioners to raise those allegations, in as much as the members against whom the said allegations are made are not made parties to the present petition, nor any specific allegation against them has been made in the petition. It is settled law that if any allegation of malafide is made against a person, he is required to be made a party respondent in the petition, so that he can meet those allegations. In the absence of such persons not being made party respondents and the allegations not being specifically made in the petition, it would not be appropriate for us to refer to the allegations made in the rejoinder. 3. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents, they have categorically stated that Organizing Committee had short-listed 20 persons who would work as members of jury to select the films to be screened. It is stated that the work involves devoting of one month's time for selecting the films, as the selection process was to continue for a period of one month. It is submitted that out of 20 persons who were contacted, 9 persons volunteered and ultimately jury consisting of nine members, whose names are given in the affidavit, was constituted. The list of the persons 3 who were contacted so also the list of persons who constitute of jury has been annexed to the affidavit. Not only this but the credentials of the persons who are selected as members of the selection committee are given in paragraph D of the affidavit. A perusal of the said list would reveal that these nine persons have the requisite expertise in their field and are the persons of eminence in their respective fields. It is also pertinent to note that the credentials of the persons who have been selected to work as jury have also not been challenged or disputed in the petition. In the affidavit, it is specifically stated that the nine persons of the jury have viewed various films and selected the films which have been found fit by them to be screened at the International Film Festival. It is also to be noted that the said Committee has also viewed the film of the petitioners, but not found the same to be suitable to be screened at the International Film Festival. It is thus clear that the experts body, whose credentials and qualifications are not disputed, has by a selection process, which was continuing for a period of one month has selected the films, which are found to be suitable by them for screening. It is to be noted that the decision is taken by an independent body consisting of nine experts in the field. It may be the contention of the petitioners, that their films may be of an excellent quality and are such which ought to have been selected for screening. However, the perception of the petitioners may differ with the perception of other persons. However, an expert body consisting of nine independent persons has found the films of the petitioners to be not suitable for screening and particularly when there are no allegations regarding the credentials of the members of the committee, we do not find that the decision of the committee has been 4 vitiated by any of the grounds which are available in the field of administrative law i.e., arbitrariness, irrationality or malafides. Merely because the petitioners' film is not selected, it cannot be held that the action of the selection committee suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (J.N. PATEL, ACTING, C.J.) (B.R. GAVAI, J.)