Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Neeta Verma v. State Of U.P. Through The Chief Secretary & Others - WRIT - C No. 1738 of 2004 [2004] RD-AH 33 (19 January 2004)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).




Smt Neeta Verma ----- Petitioner


The State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. -----        Respondents  


Hon'ble Dr.B.S.Chauhan,J.

Hon'ble  Arun Tandon, J.

This writ petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to release the subsidy in favour of the petitioner for producing the film in Hindi.

Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner who claims to have produced a Hindi film 'Savera' claims subsidy as per the terms of Film Policy-2001, amended from time to time.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner had produced a film 'Savera', in terms of the said Policy he cannot be deprived of the right to get the subsidy and this Court should issue a direction to the respondents to release the same.

Learned Standing Consel has submitted that the application for subsidy is not maintainable as it has not been submitted in terms of the said Policy. The Policy requires to submit the application before commencement of the production along with the script etc. As petitioner has filed it after production of the film, the same cannot be entertained and this Court has no competence to issue a direction contrary to law. Therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.

We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Relevant part of the Policy 2001 reads as under:-

"Application for grant of subsidy, to be submitted to PICUP, being Secretary/Fund Manager to the Film Development Fund on the prescribed format in triplicate along with six copies of the script in the language in which the film is to be produced along with 6 copies translated in Hindi, and 2 copies translated in English.

The producer to apply for subsidy before commencement of production along with details of script, concept note, important characters, artists playing the role, cost of production, team details and budget estimates."

In the instant case, petitioner had submitted that though the production of the film was started long back after it has been completed, only the dubbing and editting part remain to be made. The petitioner submitted the application on 3.12.2003 along with the receipt of fee and the same has not been accepted by the respondents.

Admittedly, the petitioner did not file any application before the commencement of the film. Application of the petitioner cannot be entertained at such a belated stage. Therefore, the respondents are not bound to entertain the application at such a belated stage.

The Court has no competence to issue a direction contrary to law. (vide Union of India & another vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 453; State of U.P. & ors. V. Harish Chandra & ors., (1996) 9 SCC 309; and Vice Chancellorl University of Allahabad & ors. V. Dr. Anand prakash Mishra & ors., (1997) 10 SCC 264).

In State of Punjab & ors. V. Renuka Singla & ors. (1994) 1 SCC 175, dealing with a similar situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

"We fail to appreciate as to how the High Court or this Court can be generous or liberal in issuing such directions which in substance amount to directing the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules and regulations."

Similarly, in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Ashrafulla Khan & ors., JT2002 (2) SC 113, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

"The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to enforce rule of law and not pass order or direction which is contrary to what has been injected by law."

We also find no force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that some other persons who have also produced films and the respondents have entertained their application at a much belated stage, therefore, the State cannot give a discriminatory treatment to the petitioner and as the petitioner is entitled to for the same treatment, the subsidy amount should be released in her favour.

Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate an illegality. Therefore, we are not bound to repeat the wrong action done by us earlier. This view stands fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court eg., Snehprabha Vs. State of U.P.  & ors., AIR  1996 SC 540; Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority Vs.  Daulat  Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35;  State of Haryana Vs. Ram Kumar Maan, (1997) 3 SCC  321; and M/s. Faridabad Ct. Scan Centre Vs. Director  General, Health Services & ors., (1997) 7 SCC 752.

In Finance Commissioner (Revenue) Vs. Gulab Chandra & anr., 2001 AIR SCW 4774, the Hon'ble Apex Court rejected the contention that as other similarly situated persons had been retained in service, the petitioner could not have been discharged during the period of probation observing that if no action has been taken in a similar situation against similarly situated persons, it did not confer any legal right upon the petitioner therein.

In Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. Sampuran Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1347 and Union of India & ors. Vs. Rakesh Kumar, 2001 AIR SCW 1458 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Court cannot issue direction that some mistake be perpetuated on the ground of discrimination or hardship.

Any action/order contrary to law does not confer any right upon any person for similar treatment. (Vide State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal, (1999) 9 SCC 240; Yogesh Kumar & ors vs. Government of NCT, Delhi & ors., 2003 (3) SCC 548; and Union of India & anr. Vs. International Trading Company & anr., (2003) 5 SCC 437).

Thus in view of the above, it becomes crystal clear that a wrong action taken or order passed cannot be perpetuated on the ground of equal treatment or hardship.

Thus, in view of the above, as petitioner has not filed any application within time as prescribed by the Policy, we find no force in the petition.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.