IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.26486/2018 (C) Between:
Sri M.D. Parthasarathy, S/o Sri M.V.Doreswamy Iyengar, Aged about 49 years, R/at No.491/1B, Chavadi Beedi, 1st Cross, Agrahara, Mysuru – 560 004. ... Petitioner (By Sri C.R.Gopalaswamy, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Department of Kannada Culture & Information, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001, Rep. by Under Secretary.
2. The Advisory Committee, To the Government of Karnataka, For 2016 Calendar Year, For the purpose of selection of qualitative Kannada & Regional Films for Subsidy Rep. by its Member Secretary, No.17, Vaartha Soudha, Bhagawan Mahaveer Road, (Infantry Road), Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. Sri Chandrashekar Aluru, Major, Present.
4. Sri Krishne Gowda, Major, Member, Senior Supporting Actor & Stage Artist.
5. Sri Devu Pathara, Major, Member, Senior Journalist.
6. Sri Ramadeva Rake, Major, Member, Writer & Journalist.
7. Smt.Abhinaya, Major, Member, Cine Artist.
8. Sri Srinivasa S. Gurjala, Major, Cine Artist, Member.
Respondent Nos.3 to 8 are Present and Members of The Advisory Committee to the Government of Karnataka for 2015-2016 selection of qualitative Kannada & Regional Films for subsidy All are residents of:
No.17, Vaartha Soudha, Bhagawan Mahaveer Road, (Infantry Road), Bengaluru – 560 001.
9. Divyashri Chitra Nirmana Samasthe, Rep. by its Producer, Sri Snehamayi Krishna, S/o Late Sri Siddappa, Aged about 47 years, R/at No.334, Bandipalya, Ganapathi Ashrama Post, Mysuru – 560 025. … Respondents (By Sri Dinesh Rao, Additional Advocate General a/w Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA for R-1 and R-2;
Sri Vinayak Kulkarni, Advocate for Sri. Arun Shyam, Advocate for R-9;
R-3 to R-8 – Served through Hand Summons) ***** This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Respondent No.1 vide Annexure-G, etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner claiming to be a film producer having produced Kannada film viz., “Haakida Hejje” had applied for subsidy as per the Kannada Feature Film Policy, 2011. The said policy provides for guidelines stipulated for the purpose of granting of awards as well as subsidy.
2. Sri.Dinesh Rao, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State as well as the advisory committee states that there is no constitutional or statutory right involved in the present matter and this aspect of the matter has been dealt and considered in the order passed on 27.10.2017 in W.P.Nos.2210/2016 & 2212/2016 c/w W.P.No.58985/2015. It is further pointed out that evaluation process has been carried as regards the applications and in so far as the petitioner’s film is concerned, evaluation has been made. Copy of the evaluation result is furnished with a memo. As per the said evaluation process, the film of the petitioner has been evaluated as Grade-C.
3. As per the said evaluation process, the film of the petitioner has been evaluated as Grade C and the committee has also made particular remarks at the relevant columns while rejecting the claim. It is noticed that this Court while passing of the order in W.P.Nos. 2210/2016 and 2212/2016 c/w W.P. No 58985/2015, where the petitioners were similarly situated, had observed that the petitioners did not have any statutory or constitutional right to claim a subsidy. The Court also stated that since the petitioners had failed to establish the availability of such rights, the question of assigning reasons to the order rejecting the subsidy application does not arise.
4. Apart from the reasons set out above, it also bears noting that once the Committee has conducted its evaluation and assigned grades, this Court cannot substitute its judgment in the place of an evaluation that has been conducted according to the standards prescribed by the law. The grounds for judicial review arise only when there has been a violation of a Statutory or Constitutional right or when the order so passed is not in accordance with Constitutional/Statutory mandate. On relying upon the afore-mentioned observations of the Court in W.P. Nos. 2210/2016 and 2212/2016 c/w W.P. No 58985/2015, it becomes clear that no grounds are made out to exercise the power of judicial review in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Furthermore, the contention of the petitioner that the constitution of the committee is violative of the standards prescribed under the Karnataka Film Policy, 2011 holds no merit in light of the amendment dated 17.10.2014 to the Karnataka Film Policy, 2011.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
In view of the disposal of the matter, all pending applications are disposed of as not requiring any order of adjudication.
Sd/- JUDGE RS/* ct:mhp