IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY WRIT PETITION Nos.2210 & 2212/2016 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.58985/2015 (C) W.P.Nos.2210 & 2212/2016 BETWEEN:
1. RAJSHEKAR S/O LATE K N GUNDA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PANASARI MERCHANT, MANDI PET RAMANAGARA-571511 2. RANJITH S/O LATE CHOTE SAAB, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NO.43, SARABANDE PALYA, BANASHANKARI KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 082 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.RAJESH GOWDA K S, ADV.) AND:
KANNADA CULTURAL AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KARNATAKA, # 17, "VARTHA SOUDHA"
BHAGAVAN MAHAVEER ROAD, (INFANTRY ROAD), BEHIND HINDU OFFICE, BANGALORE – 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT:SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD:7.12.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A COMPLETELY WHICH IS PASSED BY THE STATE FILM AWARD AND SUBSIDY SELECTION COMMITTEE AND DIRECT THE CONCERNED DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO RECONSTITUTE THE FRESH COMMITTEE AS PER THE LAW MENTIONED UNDER KARNATAKA FEATURE FILM RULES-2011 CIRCULAR FOR THE FRESH CONSIDERATION AND SELECTION OF MOVIES FOR STATE AWARD AND SUBSIDY.
W.P. NO.58985/2015 BETWEEN:
A NAGAPPA S/O APPAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS PROPRIETOR, KRISHNA TALKIES, (PRODUCTION HOUSE) NO.401, CHARAN APARTMENT, 6TH CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE – 32 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. DIWAKARA K, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KANNADA CULTURE AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY KANNADA CULTURE AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT:SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 7.12.2015 PASSED BY THE R-2 FOUND AT ANNX-A & QUASH RULE 9, 10 & 16 OF THE KANNADA CHALANACHITRA NITI-2011" ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 19.3.2011 FOUND AT ANNX-B BY DECLARING THE SAID RULE 9, 10 & 16 AS OPPOSED TO RULE OF LAW AS ENVISAGED UNDER ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO RECONSIDER THE GRANT OF SUBSIDY TO THE MOVIE "MADARANGI" PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN.
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
ORDER The petitioners have challenged the Government order dated 07.12.2015 bearing No. KaSava 113 PIF 2015, Bangalore of the 2nd respondent and also sought for quashing the same and further sought for a direction to the concerned department of the Government to reconstitute the fresh committee as per law and sought to include the petitioners’ movies for grant of subsidy of Rs.10,00,000/-.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have submitted the applications for grant of subsidy to their movies called ‘Kalyanamasthu’ and ‘Madarangi’. But the case of the petitioners for grant of subsidy to petitioners’ movies has not been considered which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. The Government of Karnataka has framed Kannada Chalanachitra Neethi, 2011 (herein after called as ‘Neethi, 2011’) produced as Annexure-R1 to the statement of objections filed by the respondent-State. The Neethi, 2011 prescribes several norms for the purpose of granting subsidy to movies which includes quantitative, qualitative of movies apart from other aspect of stories.
4. Item No.2(ix) of Neethi, 2011 prescribes subsidies for the purpose of classifications. In order to extend the benefit of subsidy to the movies, a Committee has been constituted consisting of 11 members under the Neethi, 2011. The petitioners’ movie was one such which satisfies all the requirements of Neethi, 2011 and no reasons have been assigned for non-consideration of petitioners’ movies for subsidy.
5. It is submitted that the petitioners have taken care and caution and exhibited the film as per condition prescribed by the Karnataka Film Board. The Committee before rejecting the case of the petitioners to grant subsidy to the petitioners’ movies which is a public fund, it is the burden of the Committee formed by respondent to assign reasons for rejection of the petitioners’ case for grant of Government subsidy to their movies. Wherever there is exercise of Government power, it shall assign reasons for not considering case of the petitioners in granting subsidy to their movies. The action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioners is arbitrary and violative of Neethi, 2011. Hence, non-consideration of the case of the petitioners violates the fulfillment of ingredients of Neethi, 2011.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same are liable to be dismissed on the ground of noncompliance of the statutory requirements.
7. Since the petitioners have challenged the rejection of the their cases for grant of subsidy which was rejected by the Committee formulated by the respondent and as long as the Committee has not been made a party and in their absence, as held by this Court in W.P.No.14824/12 and connected cases decided on 31.07.2012 the prayers of the petitioners do not survive for consideration in these writ petitions.
8. In order to encourage film industry, the Neethi, 2011 has been constituted to consider various aspects in granting subsidy to the movies, tax exhibition, awards, classification of movies for subsidy and other aspects pertaining to exhibition of films in Karnataka. The Karnataka Film Policy – 2011 has been formulated after a comprehensive debates at meetings held on 15.10.2010 and 17.09.2010 under the chairmanship of the Secretary to the Government, Kannada and Culture and Information, and Hon’ble Minister for Information respectively in the presence of representatives of Karnataka Film Chambers of Commerce, Karnataka Film Directors Association, Karnataka Film Exhibitors Federation and other Organization.
9. The Karnataka Film Policy – 2011 was established with the following objectives:-
Creation of infrastructures facilities and extending encouragement for the development for the Kannada film industry.
Encouragement for promoting arts, language, culture, natural, historical and tourism spots of different regions of the State.
Encouragement of films based on stories and novels in Kannada.
Conferring of awards to encourage film artistes and technicians.
Conferring of awards to give a boost to Kannada film script writing.
Implementation of a single window scheme in a phased manner to help in film shooting.
Encouragement for establishing mini cinema houses to enable screening of Kannada films.
Strengthening the educational and training base of films.
Collaboration in organizing Film Festivals.
10. The aim and object is to see that the movies were shooted within Karnataka and they get encouragement and to be exempted from tax and to get award for movies and in order to pay huge sums of money towards subsidy, the Government has formulated Committee to consider each and every aspect before selecting and rejecting movies for grant of subsidy. The movie of the petitioner is one such which has been rejected for grant of subsidy and at the relevant column a remark has been made in Clause - C as ‘kalape’, ‘poor’. Classification A means ‘very good’, B means ‘average’ and C means ‘kalape’. Hence, the case of the petitioners has been rejected. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that what has been stated by the petitioners does not hold water since the case of the petitioners has been rightly rejected by the Committee. A certificate has been issued to that effect as per Annexure-R3 at the relevant column it is referred as movie is not good and the film ended with raktapatha. These are the remarks which itself go to show that the movies of the petitioners are not entitled for subsidy as examined by the Committee. Hence, sought to dismiss these writ petitions.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for both side and perused the documents produced by both the parties. The petitioners who have approached this Court have to establish that the statutory and constitutional rights are infringed under Constitution of India. Neither statutory rights nor constitutional rights under this scheme are evolved for the purpose of encouragement. Since the Committee consisting of 11 members has rejected the case of the petitioners for grant of subsidy to their movies after examining relevant aspects by assigning reasons as to whether movie is good or bad and ultimately came to conclusion that the movie is not fit for grant of subsidy. The view taken by the Committee for rejection is not a ground which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
12. The submission of the petitioners that the respondent should have assigned reasons in rejecting the case of the petitioners is not accepted because the reasons sought to be assigned wherever the constitutional rights and statutory rights are infringed. As long as the petitioners have failed to establish non-exercise of constitutional and statutory rights, the question of assigning reasons does not arise for the purpose of granting subsidy to the movies of the petitioners. The Committee consisting of 11 members after giving particular remarks at the relevant columns has rejected the claim. I do not find any illegality or irregularity on the part of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioners for grant of subsidy to their movies.
Accordingly, these petitions are rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE NM