IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 07.12.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.26197 of 2010 SS Music Channel M/s.L and C Media Ltd Represented by its Chief Executive Officer Mr.H.Ramakrishnan No.127,Triplicane High Road, Triplicane, Chennai-600 005. ---- Petitioner Vs. The Director (Broadcasting Content) Office of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, A Wing Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-1100011 --- Respondent Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings of the order dated 16.11.2010 on the file of the respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian Sr.Advocate for M/s.S.Hemalatha For Respondent : Mr.G.K.R.Pandian Senior Central Government Standing counsel. O R D E R This petition has been filed, challenging the order passed by the respondent, on 16.11.2010, suspending the telecast of the petitioner channel for a period of seven days from 22.11.2010 to 29.11.2010, on the allegation that the petitioner channel had violated Section 5 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, and Rule 6(1) (a),(d),(k) and (o) of the programme code prescribed under the said Act. 2.The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order, dated 16.11.2010,had been passed by the respondent, without considering the written explanation submitted by the petitioner channel, on 28.05.2010. He had also submitted that there is no provision, either in the Cable Television Network https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (Regulation) Act, 1995 or in the relevant rules, providing for the suspension of the telecast by the petitioner channel. However, the penalty of suspension of the telecast had been imposed on the petitioner Channel, based on the guidelines for uplinking from India, dated 02.12.2005, which does not have any binding force. 3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that punishment of the suspension of the telecast had been imposed on the petitioner channel, based on Clause 8 of the guidelines for uplinking from India, dated 02.12.2005. Eventhough, the respondent is entitled to impose the punishment of suspension of the telecast on the petitioner channel, for its first violation of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Cable Television Network (Rules),1994, for a period of upto thirty days, the respondent had chosen to impose the punishment of suspension of transmission on the petitioner channel, only for a period of seven days, from 22.11.2010 to 29.11.2010. 4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had filed the present Writ Petition before this Court and had obtained an order of interim stay, on 19.11.2010, in M.P.No.2 of 2010. Thereafter, in view of the interim order passed by this Court, on 19.11.2010, sufficient instructions have been issued on behalf of the Ministry of information and Broadcasting, New Delhi, directing the Managing Director, M/s.Tata communications Ltd., Mumbai and the other authorities concerned not to stop the uplinking, in respect of the petitioner channel. Therefore, there was no violation of the impugned order passed by this Court, by the respondent, or by the other authorities concerned, as alleged by the petitioner. 5.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had brought to the notice of this court that an affidavit, dated 22.11.2010, had been filed by the Chief Executive Officer, of the petitioner Company pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. Paragraph 4 of the said affidavit reads as follows: 4.The petitioner hereby unconditionally undertakes that in future it would not telecast any programme which will violate Rule 6 of the programme code prescribed under the Cable Television Networks(Regulation) Act, 1995 and its rules framed thereunder. The petitioner also undertakes to strictly comply with the programme code prescribed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the rules framed thereunder. 6.In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner channel, as well as the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent and in view of the undertaking given by the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner Company, in his affidavit, dated 22.11.2010, and in view of the fact that the petitioner channel had been prevented from telecasting for three days, from 26.11.2010 to 29.11.2010, this Court finds it appropriate, in interest of justice, to setaside the impugned Order passed by the respondent, on 16.11.2010. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner Channel is found to be committing any irregularity or illegality prohibited by the Act and the rules, framed thereunder,it would be open to the respondent and the other authorities concerned to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner channel, in accordance with the procedures established by law. Consequently connected MP's are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar arr To The Director (Broadcasting Content) Office of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, A Wing Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-1100011 +1cc to Mrs. Hemalatha, Advocate Sr 87473 +1cc to Mr.G.K.R.Pandian, Advocate Sr 87229 BKY(CO) km/20.12. Writ Petition No.26197 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/