ORDER
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
Page 1090
1. Writ petition by a person, who had produced a movie by name “Kalarava” which was adjudged as best “Children Film” and had been awarded a prize by the State Government for the year 2002-2003.
2. It appears the writ petitioner had also sought for extending the benefit of subsidy for the production of the movie and the grievance of the petitioner is that it had not been so extended to the petitioner while subsidy has been extended to movies which are to be categorized as non entity movies, which are out right an affront to the sensibilities and good moral sense of the members of the society and to such movies which had not even qualified for any recognition before the committee which was entrusted with the responsibility of selecting the movies for the year 2003 — 2004 for the purpose of extending the benefit of providing subsidy. This writ petition has been coining up for orders and hearing after issue of notice to the respondents ever since the year 2005.
3. The 1st respondent is the Government of Karnataka, Rep. by its Commissioner, Dept. of Information, Films Division and the 2nd respondent is the Director, Department of Information, Films Division, and 3rd respondent is the President, Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce, are served while Sri. Nadiga Shivanandappa, learned HCGP appears for the respondents 1 and 2, Sri. S.N. Hegde Kadave, for the 3rd respondent
4. Statement of objections have also been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, inter alia, urging that the petitioner has no right to claim subsidy; that the petitioners film though was adjudged as the best “Children Film” by a jury constituted by the Government of Karnataka for the year 2002-2003 a committee which had been constituted for the purpose of recommending the selected 20 films for grant of subsidy based on good quality did not recommend the film produced by the petitioner for the grant.
5. The case of the respondents is that this film has not been selected in this list for providing subsidy and accordingly the petitioner has been not given the benefit of subsidy. It is urged that the mere fact that the petitioner’s film had been adjudged as the best children film does not necessarily mean that it can be characterized as a best movie or one of the three movies categorized amongst the best first three feature films, which are Page 1091 automatically provided with subsidy in the sense that the committee had recommended to extend subsidy to other three films; that the committee having identified three other films “Ekangi”, “Gandada Gombe”, “Dweepa” and such films though secured awards during the year 2001-2002 had not been extended the subsidy for that year and have been selected and given subsidy as per the recommendation of the committee set up by Government of Karnataka in the year 2002-2003; that no exception can be taken to the action of the State Government and writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. It is also urged by Smt. Asha Kumbargerimath, learned Govt. Pleader that subsidy has been extended by Government of Kurnataka to the first three best films only which are socially relevant and not for children films; that the committee also having recommended the case of one re-make film by name “Chandu” which was originally produced in Tamil language and awarded the best film award, the Government had acted accordingly and therefore no subsidy was extended to the petitioner’s film etc and that the writ petition is to be dismissed.
7. The whole conduct on the part of the committee and of the Government is rather whimsical, clearly in contravention of the guidelines and a gross arbitrary action in the matter of administering the largess of the State.
8. It is indicated that a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs is provided by way of subsidy to such 20 movies, which are identified/selected by the committee for giving subsidy. While it may be the prerogative of the State to encourage art and literature and to provide an healthy exposure to the citizens to such fine things in life, in the name of encouraging art, music, literature, if the State action is arbitrary in dolling out the State funds that cannot be sustained, when judicial review is invited.
9. In a country where millions of people go without food, clothing, shelter and the basic things in life, providing such subsidy or extending such facilities is a luxury for the State but that being a matter within the policy domain of the executive part of the State, it is not for this Court to examine this aspect further. But while so administering the largess of the State, it is expected that the state should act in a fair manner as otherwise the State action becomes bad as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. In the present case even as per the guidelines and the submissions of the learned HCGP the committee which had been constituted for selecting the films of the year 2002-2003 goes about selecting the best movies of the earlier year and recommends grant of subsidy to the movies recognized in the year 2001-2002 and the Government accepts such recommendations blindly and extends subsidy. While the very grant of such subsidy is clearly in violation and an arbitrary action; that being at the cost of a film produced in the year 2002-2003 which had won the very State Government award as the best Children’s Film, it only compounds the arbitrariness and wayward action on the part of the State.
Page 1092
11. The distinctions sought to be made by the respondents that it is only socially relevant movies, which are selected as the first three best movies for the grant of automatic subsidy as best movies and children’s films are not included in that, is only indicative of the mis-conceptions and the callousness on the part of the State exhibited towards children’s in general and about films having children as a theme in particular.
12. It is rather surprising nay shocking that the State should characterize that children’s films are not socially relevant. It is a stand, which is on the face of it most untenable, grossly reasonable find leading to perversity. If the respondents are squandering the State largess, it cannot be at the cost of persons like the petitioner, whose film had been qualified and adjudged as the best children film. Keeping out only the petitioner’s movie out of such benefit of subsidy being granted to award winning movies is an arbitrary action and cannot be put forth as a defence before this Court to justify the State action.
13. Respondents’ action is most reprehensible to say the least.
14. While this Court normally does not interfere in matters of such nature particularly, in a matter of grant of subsidy to an eligible person, in the present petition as it is not indicated that the petitioner’s movie was ineligible for extending such subsidy and on the other hand the State itself having recommended the movie for best “Children Movie”, automatically it stands qualified for the mandatory category itself for extending the subsidy if not for the benefit under the discretionary category.
15. While it may be difficult to disturb what had already been granted and a subsidy given to the producers of special movies, the State should make amends by extending similar benefit to the petitioner’s movie, which is the least that is expected of the State.
16. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner’s movie “Kalarava” the best Children Film awarded for the year 2002-2003 for extending subsidy and to grant the same. It is high time that the respondent — State sets it’s home in order and ensures that such largess of the State is not squandered in a whimsical manner by extending mandatory subsidy to undeserving persons/movies.
17. Respondents are directed to put in proper guidelines and ensure that the members of the Committee recommend the deserving films and confine within the proper guidelines to be framed by the State Government within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
18. Writ petition is allowed with the above directions and levying costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the respondents.