Discretionary Administrative Decisions on Program Commissioning Not Subject to Mandamus Absent Arbitrariness or Vested Rights

Petitioner No. 1, a production firm, submitted a scientific animation proposal titled "Zameen Dekh, Falak Dekh, Jahan Dekh" to Respondent (DD Urdu) under a fixed-budget commissioning scheme.

Despite expert recommendations for the "Animation" category, the Respondent arbitrarily classified it as "Fiction".

The Petitioner challenged this in 2019, and the Court, via order dated 31.01.2020, directed the Respondent to re-categorize the film as "Animation" and take a further decision on merits within four weeks.

Following disposal, the Petitioner filed multiple applications (CM APPLs) seeking work orders and compensation, alleging non-compliance.

The Respondent later revealed that while 164 proposals were commissioned, the remaining 421 (including the Petitioner’s) were cancelled by Prasar Bharati on 04.12.2021 due to a lack of funds and the closure of the time-bound scheme.

1. Whether the Respondent complied with the Court’s direction to take a "further decision" on the commissioning of the Petitioner's proposal in the Animation category.

2. Whether the Petitioner has a vested right to be issued a work order following the re-categorization of the proposal.

3. Whether the Court can grant substantive relief such as work orders or remedial compensation in a disposed of writ petition via miscellaneous applications.

The court applied Clause 5 of the Guidelines for consideration, processing and approval of commissioned Programmes for Telecast on Doordarshan Channels, which reserves the absolute right of the Director General to change the number, genre, or theme of programmes commissioned at any stage.

The court relied on the principle of judicial restraint in policy and executive decisions, as affirmed in Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Himalayan Flora and Aromas Ltd. v. MCD, holding that courts should not interfere with bona fide administrative choices regarding fund allocation or technical expertise unless they are palpably arbitrary or mala fide.

The court reasoned that while the initial miscategorization was corrected pursuant to the 2020 order, such re-categorization did not equate to a guarantee of commissioning.

The Respondent demonstrated through affidavits and internal notes that the commissioning scheme was a time-bound project funded by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, which subsequently declined further funding for the remaining 421 proposals, including the Petitioner's.

The court noted that because no other shortlisted programme from the same secondary list had been approved, there was no evidence of discriminatory treatment against the Petitioner.

Under Article 226, the court declined to substitute its judgment for the executive's decision to close a cash-strapped scheme, noting that the Petitioner’s proposal remained at the "shortlisted" stage and did not create a vested legal right to a contract.

Consequently, while the prayer for a work order was denied, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Petitioners costs of Rs. 50,000/- for the delay in communication.

The applications were disposed of accordingly.