IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU dated this the 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY WRIT PETITION NO.30535/2013 (C) BETWEEN:
SMT. S RADHA PROPRIETOR, WIFE OF SRI NARASIMHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, M/S.N R CREATIONS, NO.69,2ND MAIN ROAD, CHIKKALASANDRA, BANGALORE – 560 061 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.NARASIMHA RAJU- PARTY IN PERSON) AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT OF KANNADA CULTURE AND INFORMATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION, BHAGAVAN MAHAVEER ROAD, (INFANTRY ROAD) BANGALORE – 560001 3. S.D.ANKALAGI, S/O LATE DUNDAPPA ANKALAGI AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/AT 19, 3RD MAIN, KPT VIJAYA PARADISE APARTMENT, FLR NO.T1, FOURTH FLOOR, VANIVILAS GARDEN, BANGALORE – 79 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.G.SHIVANNA, ADDL.AG AND SRI.G.RAMESH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI.V.D.GANIGER, ADV. FOR R3 ) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REFORM A COMMITTEE WITH PERSONS WHO HAVE NO PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE FILMS AND FOR PROVIDING SUBSIDY FOR KANNADA AND REGIONAL FILMS IN A TRANSPARENT MANNER .
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER The petitioner is a producer of Kannada Feature Film “Yukthi” produced under the banner M/s.N R Creations registered with the Karnataka Films Chamber of Commerce, Bangalore. The said film was censored by the Censor Board of Film Certification on 31.3.2010.
2. The government of Karnataka called for the film producers to submit applications for State Awards for Kannada and Regional Language Films with certain conditions. The conditions are that the film should be shooted in Karnataka only and the same shall be approved by the Karnataka Films Chamber of Commerce.
3. The petitioner submitted that all the ingredients as required have been satisfied and made a claim for consideration of film to extend subsidy. Unfortunately, the subsidy has not been extended to the petitioner’s film and whereas the subsidy has been granted to other ineligible films.
4. He has also brought to the notice of this Court that he had filed W.P.No.4298/2012 in which a prayer was made to withdraw the Chairman in the committee, who was appointed to examine the films for the purpose of subsidy on the ground that the very appointment of the Chairman was not proper. On issuance of notice by this Court, the respondent – Government withdrew the Chairman. Accordingly, the prayer made in that writ petition had become infructuous. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer seeking direction to the respondents to reform the committee with persons who have no personal interest in the films for grant of subsidy to Kannada and regional films.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner got the prayer of the petition amended which was allowed by this Court and in the amended prayer sought to grant subsidy to the petitioner’s film under special category as they have granted to other films and also to withdraw the subsidy disbursed to the other films which are named therein. It is submitted that there is no proper guidelines for the purpose of granting subsidy.
6. It is submitted that the film of the petitioner satisfied all the ingredients and the requirements of the committee, but the subsidy has not been granted to the petitioner’s film.
7. Sri A G Shivanna, learned Additional AG submits that the prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to constitute a committee of persons who have no personal interest with regard to awarding of subsidy to the best film and to withdraw the Chairman of the Committee who is biased . Secondly, his submission in the amended petition is for a direction to withdraw the subsidy granted to several films since they have not fulfilled the requirements of the Committee. It is submitted that the constituted Committee consisting of well qualified persons shall be allowed to function in respect of the subsidy.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides.
9. At this stage it is found that the party-in-person is one Smt.S Radha. Now her husband is arguing the matter as party-in-person in this matter. It is not permissible for others to represent the party-in-person other than the lawyers. The other persons are permitted only in the case the party-in-person is not keeping good health. At this stage, the permission of the Court was sought and the person was permitted to represent the party-in-person. The grievance is general in nature. It is for the betterment of the scheme. Hence, I consider the submission of Sri Narasimharaju, husband of the petitioner.
10. The prayer of the petitioner is for constituting the committee with persons having knowledge in Kannada films and regional films and there shall be no person in the committee who has got personal interest either directly or indirectly. This has to be taken care while constituting the Committee. The case of the petitioner is that the earlier Chairman was withdrawn by the Government and the subsidy granted during his period has also been withdrawn. Hence it is to be noted that while awarding subsidy it shall not infringe the statutory or fundamental rights of any persons. It is the commitment of the government to encourage regional films which were shooted within Karnataka only. The same will not confer any statutory or fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution of India to any persons to challenge the same. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the party-in-person lacks infringement of any right to challenge action of the government. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make a representation to the government to consider his case for grant of subsidy and it is for the government to consider his representation for grant of subsidy to his film in accordance with law Sd/- JUDGE NM