Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2024 DAILYLAW 772 (JK)

Goodwill Productions v. State Of J&K

2024-09-06

Sanjay Dhar

body2024
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Dhar, J. 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged consideration order dated 26.03.2018 issued by respondent No.2, whereby its claim with regard to release of payment for preparing short documentary film for the Department of Public Health Engineering to highlight its achievements, has been rejected. 2. According to the petitioner, he had approached the respondents with an idea to prepare a documentary film for giving wide publicity to the development works of the respondent department so as to highlight its activities. It has been submitted that the script formulated by the petitioner was submitted by it with the respondent department for its acceptance and approval. Respondent No.2. in terms of letter dated 27.04.2005, is stated to have considered the said proposal and forwarded it to the Director Information, J&K Government, for his comments. It has been submitted that the Directorate of Information vide its letter dated 13.06.2005, observed that the idea is good and that the said Department has no objection if the film is prepared for highlighting the achievements of the PHE sector. Thereafter respondent No.2 is stated to have submitted the said proposal to respondent No.1 in terms of letter dated 07.07.2005. 3. According to the petitioner, the Minister for PHE Department vide his endorsement dated 23.03.2006 accorded approval to the proposal of the petitioner and directed release of funds. It has been submitted that a similar proposal was mooted by the petitioner for highlighting the development works of the respondent Department in Jammu province and the said proposal was also submitted to the higher authorities for approval and release of funds. 4. The petitioner is stated to have pursued the matter with the respondents and vide letter dated 07.07.2008, respondent No.1 sought complete information with full justification from respondent No.2, in response whereto, respondent No.2, vide his letter dated 19.07.2008, conveyed that the requisite information has been submitted in terms of communications dated 07.10.2006 and 05.06.2008 and further conveyed that deficiency, if any, may be communicated. Vide communication dated 02.08.2008 addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, it was clarified that the documentary film has been received by the respondent Department and that the Minister for PHE, I&FC has directed the department to release the payments to the concerned agency. 5. Vide communication dated 02.08.2008 addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, it was clarified that the documentary film has been received by the respondent Department and that the Minister for PHE, I&FC has directed the department to release the payments to the concerned agency. 5. It appears that on 14.11.2008, respondent No.1 asked respondent No.2 to intimate whether procedural and codal formalities were followed in the matter, to which respondent No.2 responded by stating that the matter relating to rates with regard to the documentary film was taken up with the Information Department and it was conveyed that the rate for preparation of the documentary film of 25 – 30 minutes duration on Hota/digital format with non-linear editing/Ab. Roll with Beta editing has been fixed as Rs.1.90 lacs each. It was also conveyed that no other procedural and codal formality has been followed. 6. According to the petitioner, the respondents did not take any action in the matter which compelled him to file a writ petition bearing OWP No.1863/2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 26.06.2013, whereby the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and take a decision thereon in accordance with rules. It was also observed that in case it is found that the petitioner is entitled to any payment, the same shall be released in its favour without a period of eight weeks. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, the respondents have issued impugned order dated 26.03.2018, whereby claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 7. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the respondents have ignored the inter-departmental communications, copies whereof have been placed on record by the petitioner. It has been further contended that the proposal of the petitioner was approved by the Minister concerned, therefore, it was not open to the respondents to decline payment him. It has been also contended that the impugned order is totally contrary to the record and, as such, the same deserves to be set aside. 8. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing their reply, wherein they have taken a stand that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was authorized by the respondents to prepare a documentary film for highlighting achievements of the Public Health Engineering Department, Srinagar. 8. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing their reply, wherein they have taken a stand that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was authorized by the respondents to prepare a documentary film for highlighting achievements of the Public Health Engineering Department, Srinagar. It has been submitted that the petitioner was never approached by the respondents for preparing such kind of documentary film. According to the respondents, there is no record to show that any such documentary film was telecast on Doordarshan. It has been submitted that merely because there was some inter-departmental correspondence with regard to proposal of the petitioner does not entitle it to claim any amount on account of preparation of the documentary film when the petitioner has never been authorized by the respondents to prepare such documentary film. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. I have also gone through the record produced by the respondents. 10. The controversy involved in this petition is as to whether the petitioner was authorized by the respondent department to prepare the documentary film and if so, whether it had the approval of the competent authority. The other issue which is required to be determined is as to whether the petitioner prepared the documentary film for the respondent Department and if so, what amount is payable to him. 11. A perusal of the copies of the documents placed on record by the petitioner along with his writ petition, the authenticity whereof has not been disputed by the respondents, coupled with the fact that these documents also form part of the record produced by the respondents, it is revealed that the petitioner has prepared a documentary film highlighting the activities of the respondent Department, which it has submitted with the said Department. The inter-departmental communications on record show that the proposal submitted by the petitioner was sent by the respondent Department to the Directorate of Information for obtaining its views. After obtaining the views of the Directorate of Information in terms of letter dated 13.06.2005, the proposal was sent to respondent No.1 in terms of letter dated 07.07.2005 for authorizing the Department to produce the documentary film and for releasing funds to the tune of Rs.1.90 lacs. After obtaining the views of the Directorate of Information in terms of letter dated 13.06.2005, the proposal was sent to respondent No.1 in terms of letter dated 07.07.2005 for authorizing the Department to produce the documentary film and for releasing funds to the tune of Rs.1.90 lacs. It also appears that vide letter dated 30.11.2005, the respondents again approached the Government for release of funds for making payment to the petitioner. Copy of the approval dated 23.03.2006 accorded by the concerned Minister has also been placed on record by the petitioner. The authenticity of this document has not been disputed by the respondents. The genuineness of this document is further strengthened from communicated dated 15.06.2007 addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, which bears reference to approval of the Minister concerned accorded on 23.03.2006. When respondent No.1 vide communication dated 14.11.2008 asked respondent No.2 to intimate as to whether any procedural and codal formalities in the matter have been followed, it was conveyed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 vide communication dated 16.01.2009 that the rates have been fixed as per the intimation given by the Information Department in terms of letter dated 20.10.2005. Vide communication dated 02.08.2008 addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, it has been clearly intimated to the said respondent that the Minister for PHE, I&FC has approved the release of payment with respect to the documentary film. 12. When we take all the aforesaid inter-departmental communications into account, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the documentary film produced by the petitioner for highlighting activities of the PHE Department, Kashmir, had the approval of the Minister concerned and it had submitted the said film with the respondent Department, whereafter it had also sought release of payment in its favour. The respondent Department had also ascertained the rates for producing such kind of films from the Information Department. The communications produced on record by the petitioner as also those which are available in the record produced by the respondents indicate that the only hitch for releasing the payment in favour of the petitioner was non- availability of funds with the respondent Department for the purpose. There is, therefore, no justification for the respondents to deny the claim of the petitioner and reject it on the basis of the grounds which are contrary to their own record. There is, therefore, no justification for the respondents to deny the claim of the petitioner and reject it on the basis of the grounds which are contrary to their own record. The impugned order passed by the respondents is, therefore, liable to the best aside. 13. The next question that comes up for consideration is as to what amount the petitioner is entitled to. As per the rates fixed by the Information Department for the kind of film which the petitioner has produced, the rate fixed is Rs.1.90 lacs. However, the record produced by the respondent Department tends to show that for a similar kind of film prepared by the petitioner for PHE Department, Jammu province, he has negotiated with the said Department and accepted an amount of Rs.1.60 lacs against the approved rate of Rs.1.90 lacs. Therefore, the petitioner is held entitled only to an amount of Rs.1.60 lacs instead of Rs.1.90 lacs as approved by the Information Department. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 26.03.2018 is set aside. The respondents are directed to release an amount of Rs.1.60 lacs (rupees one lac sixty thousand only) in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this petition till final realization of the amount. 15. The record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents.