R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

1. The petitioner is a producer of a Kannada Feature Film ‘Shabdamani’. The petitioner is an applicant for the Karnataka State Film Awards, which is governed by the Karnataka State Award to Feature Films Rules, 1984. It is the contention of the petitioner that under the Chairmanship of Smt.Bharathi Vishuvardhan a committee was constituted by the State Government for making recommendations for awards to be granted to Artists, Actors, Feature Films found to be of merit. It is further contended that the feature film produced by the petitioner was in the top of the recommendations at Sl.No.3 made by the committee. A notification in that regard was issued by the government stating that the movie produced by the petitioner has been chosen for awards.

2. However, the constitution of the committee was challenged in W.P.Nos.20535-20538/2012, before this Court. It was contended that one Mr. Ashok Kashyap, who was a Cinematographer and member of a committee was associated with another movie “Super” and in terms of the Regulations, he could not have been chosen as a committee member. Reference in this regard is made to Rule 11(2) of the Rules, 1984, which provides that any person who was directly or indirectly associated with any feature film in consideration for the awards, cannot be on the Panel of the committee to decide the awards. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein impleaded himself in W.P.Nos.20535-20538/2012. During the course of the proceedings, it appears that the State Government came forward with a suggestion in order to give a quietus of the issue brought before the Court. The State Government submitted that it is prepared to reconstitute the committee and to re-assess the feature films for awards. This Court accepted the submissions of the State Government and disposed of the writ petitions permitting the State Government to reconstitute the committee and to announce the awards afresh.

3. Sri C R Gopalaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the very same provision i.e., Rule 11(2) provides for removal of the member who is an interested party and in his place another member could be appointed. It is therefore submitted that the State Government has no power to reconstitute the entire committee, while a replacement of any interested member could have been done in terms of the Rules.

4. Per contra, learned Counsels for the respondents and learned HCGP submit that a decision taken by the State Government was placed before this Court and has been accepted by this Court and seal of approval has been granted by this Court and therefore, the action of the State Government cannot be questioned on the ground that it has acted beyond the scope of the Rules. The learned HCGP submit that in the interest of the film awards, in order to remove the cloud cast on the committee, the State Government put forth its opinion/suggestion and the same was accepted by this Court. The State Government had nothing personal in this matter and therefore it came forward to remedy the situation by reconstituting the committee and another opportunity was given to all the applicants where their feature films were considered for awards by the newly constituted committee. Therefore, it is submitted that grievances vented out by the petitioner, cannot be sustained. Learned Counsels would place reliance on two decisions of this Court in the case of Sri Rajshekar and another Vs. Kannada Cultural and Information Department, in W.P.Nos.2210/2016 and 2212/2016, which were decided on 23.10.2017 and Sri M. D. Parthasarathy Vs. State of Karnataka and others, in W.P.No.26486/2018, which was decided on 07.02.2019.

5. Heard the learned Counsels and perused the petition papers.

6. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision under the Rules which would empower the State Government to reconstitute the committee, cannot be accepted. It is well settled principle of law that if a power is vested to constitute a committee, it also implies power to reconstitute a committee. Moreover, the State Government came up with a suggestion to remedy the situation when an allegation was made that one of the interested party was a member of the committee and the same was in clear violation of the provisions of the Rules. This Court, under the facts and circumstances of the case, agreed to the suggestion made by the State Government and the State Government was permitted to reconstitute the committee.

7. Secondly, the petitioner has no vested right to claim that once an award has been announced, irrespective of the fact that the committee was not constituted in accordance with law, he cannot be denied the award. When once it is found that the committee was not constituted in accordance with law, and the matter was brought before this Court, in order to bring a semblance of respect of award, the State Government suggested that the committee should be reconstituted and newly reconstituted committee would once again assess the feature films for awards. Opportunity was once again granted to the petitioner also and the feature film produced by the petitioner has been assessed by the new committee. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that an illegality has been perpetrated. It is also an admitted fact that if the petitioner felt that there is a provision to remove the particular member of the committee who was ineligible to be a part of the committee to be substituted by another member, nothing prevented the petitioner from bringing it to the notice of this Court. The consequences of such submissions could be anything. This Court could have accepted the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and it could have directed to substitute that particular member and it is also possible that the Court could have rejected the suggestion and ordered the reconstitution of the committee. Having not raised that issue before this Court in the previous proceedings, the petitioner cannot contend that the decision of the State Government to reconstitute the committee is not in accordance with law.

8. During the course of the arguments, learned Counsel Sri C R Gopalswamy, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the subsidy granted to the petitioner as a producer of the feature film should not be recalled and there is possibility of such an action on the part of the State Government. On going through the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court does not find anything that would suggest that the subsidy granted to the petitioner could be taken away since an award has not been declared to the movie. On going through the two decisions cited by the learned Counsels for the respondents, this Court finds that the matter of grant of subsidy is governed by a policy of the State Government, and it does not fall within purview of the Rules, 1984. Even otherwise, there shall be a positive direction to the State Government not to recover the subsidy already granted to the petitioner in terms of the Kannada Chalanachitra Neeti-2011.

9. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that grievance brought before this Court by way of this writ petition is not meritted and therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed.

It is ordered accordingly.