MESSRS. PEEKAY MOVIES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR vs PRASAR BHARTI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA

A complaint under Section 10A(iv) read with Section 2(o) and 2(o)(i) of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) has been filed charging the respondent, Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India and its officers with adoption of and indulgence in restrictive trade practices and alleging that the respondents instead of inviting offers from film producers and their right holders for telecasting feature films on Sundays are contemplating giving the telecasting rights for the year 1998 to two private parties at a nominal price of Rs. 11 lakhs and Rs. 12 lakhs respectively. It has been further stated that the applicant/complainant is willing and ready to pay a sum of Rs. 26 lakhs for telecasting Bengali films from Doordarshan Kendra, Calcutta on Sundays and that this offer has already been communicated to the respondents but the latter, by their above policy proposal, are restricting competition among the film producers and their right holders and such policy would also be prejudicial to public interest and would attract the provisions of Section 2(o)(i) of the Act. An interim relief application under Section 12A of the Act has also been filed for an ex parte ad interim injunction for restraining the respondents from selling TV film slots to a few film producers only without allowing the applicant and other similar film producers to give their respective offers.

THE complaint was listed on 9.3.1998 for the first time before a Division Bench of the Commission but as it was not supported by any documents which have a bearing on the allegations of adoption of restrictive trade practices by and on behalf of the respondents, it was considered necessary to hear the respondents before a notice of enquiry was issued. Accordingly, a notice in respect of the complaint and the interim relief application was issued and in reply it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that the complaint is false and no steps have been taken by the respondents with regard to allotment of Sunday slots for telecasting films from Doordarshan Kendra of Calcutta as alleged in the complaint. Moreover, it has been denied that any decision has been taken by the respondent which has the effect of restricting competition. It has also been submitted in the reply that the complainant is not a known producer of TV serials or a right holder of Bengali feature films. It has also been denied that the respondents are trying to sell Sunday film slots for the year 1998 to two private parties at a nominal price. It has been further mentioned that the respondents are aware of the benefits of competition among the film producers and their policy is to offer Sunday slots to the highest bidder. We have heard both the learned Advocates for the complainant as well as the respondents. Learned Advocate for the respondents during her oral submissions was quite categorical and emphatic in denying the allegations and it was stated that the respondents had not taken any decision to give the rights for telecasting films on Sundays to two parties as alleged by the complainant. In fact, it was submitted that the complainant should disclose the names of those two private parties to whom these rights had been sold at a nominal price to substantiate the allegation.

The learned Advocate for the complainant produced photo-copies of a few letters at the time of hearing but these letters are not supported by an affidavit with the result that it is difficult to vouch for their authenticity and even otherwise, are also quite vague. There is no mention whatsoever in these letters that the telecasting rights have been given to two parties. In the absence of any documentary evidence to show that prima facie there is a change in the policy of the Prasar Bharati with regard to selling of telecasting rights in respect of Sunday Bengali feature films under the sponsored category, no case is made out for the grant of an ad interim injunction. On the contrary, in view of the affidavit of Shri Raj Shekhar Vyas, Deputy Controller of Programme Feature Films, the complaint is misconceived and without any basis. In other words, as prima facie there is no case of adoption of any restrictive trade practices within the meaning of Section 2(o) or 2(o)(i) of the Act by and on behalf of the respondents, the question of granting the injunction as prayed by the applicant/complainant in the application under Section 12A of the Act does not arise. As pointed out above, even the Notice of Enquiry has not been issued in this case as the complaint of restrictive trade practices is not supported by any documents whereas the allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the respondents. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that prima facie, there is no case of adoption of or indulgence any restrictive trade practices by and on behalf of the respondent and there are no grounds also for the grant of interim relief. In the result, the complaint as well as the interim relief application under Section 12A are rejected with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of case. Complaint dismissed.