CRP 65/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.NK SINGH JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Baru ah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ahmed, learned c ounsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs and Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned cou nsel appearing for the proforma respondent No.8. 2. Both the parties are not disputing the nature and types of the disputes to be decided by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 14 of the Tele com Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. For ready reference Section 14 of t he TRAI Act are quoted below:- 14. Establishment of Appellate Tribunal - The Central Government shall, by notif ication, establish an Appellate Tribunal to be known as the Telecom Disputes Set tlement and Appellate Tribunal to - (a) adjudicate any dispute - (i) between a licensor and a licensee; (ii) between two or more service providers; (iii) between a service provider and a group of consumers; Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply in respect of matters relating to - (A) the monopolistic trade practice, restrictive trade practice and u nfair trade practice which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission established under sub-section (1) of Sec tion 5 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (54 of 1969) ; (B) the complaint of an individual consumer maintainable before a Consumer Dispu tes Redressal Forum or a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission established under section 9 of the Consumer Protec tion Act, 1986 (68 of 1986); (C) dispute between telegraph authority and any other person referred to in sub- section (1) of section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885). 3. Mr. K.N. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel strenuously contends that the defendant, Rangapara Cable TV Network, Rangapara, represented by the defendant No.2 is a service provider defined in Section 2 (1) (j) of the TRAI Act. It mean s the government as a service provider and also include licensee. Further, Tele communication Services are also defined in Section 2(1)(k) of the Telecom Regul atory Authority of India Act, 1997. By Act No.2 of 2000 a proviso had been inser ted to 2(1)(k) of the TRAI Act 1997 (24 of 1997). Under the said newly inserted proviso to Section 2(1)(k) of the Act 1997, the Central Government may notify ot her services to be telecommunication Services including the Broadcasting Service s. Admittedly, the Ministry of Communication and the Information Technology issu ed the S.O. No.44(E) dated 9.1.2004 that Broadcasting service and the cable serv ice to be Telecommunication service. Service Provider is also defined in Regul ation 2(n) of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconne ction Regulation, 2004, it means the government as a service provider include a licensee as well as any broadcaster, multi system operator, cable operator or di stributor of TV channels. 4. Admittedly, in the plaint of the Title Suit No.76 of 2006 in the Court o f Munsiff at Tezpur, respondents-plaintiffs categorically pleaded that the plain tiff No.1 is doing the business of cable network and giving satellite connection to the people and providing sub-lines to the other parties within the area of R angapara. In other words, the plaintiff No.1 is also rendering Telecommunication service which include the cable operator and cable services under the said S.O. No.44(E) dated 9.1.2004 issued by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology. The respondent-plaintiff No.1 is the only authorized dealer who is licensed to broadcast/show/telecast/transmit the bonquets of pay channels of the present petitioner-proforma defendant within Rangapara area by paying proper fe es/rent etc. etc. The defendant No.1, Rangapara Cable T.V. Network without any a uthority and valid permission most illegally and unauthorisedly distributed leaf lets that Rangapara Cable T.V. Network is going to a grand opening with 70 most popular channels from 16.8.2006 within Rangapara area. Therefore, there is a dis pute between the respondents-plaintiffs and the defendant No.1, Rangapara Cable T.V. Network. Section 15 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 b ar the Civil court from entertaining any suit or proceeding in respect of any ma tter which the appellate authority is empowered by or under this Act to determin e and also that no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority i n respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. For ready reference, Section 15 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 is quoted hereunder:- 15. Civil court not to have jurisdiction - No civil court shall have jurisdictio n to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter, which the Appell ate Tribunal is, empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction s hall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken o r to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. 5. This settled position of law is not disputed by both the parties. Coming back in the present case, this Court is to see whether the defendant No.1, Rang apara Cable TV Network, Rangapara is a cable operator or/service provider. Mr. K .N. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken thi s Court to the written statement dated 13.12.2006 filed by the defendants and al so the documents filed by the defendants in support of their case. For ready ref erence, para No.11 of the written statement of the defendants is quoted hereunde r:- That the answering defendants deny the averments as contained in paragraph No.3 of the plaint. The plaintiffs are not the only authorized dealer who is licensed to broadcast/show/air/telecast the bauquet of pay channels of the Proforma defe ndants. In fact the answering defendants and their firm Rangapara Cable TV Netwo rk is also equally and legally authorized to carry the business of broadcasting, showing, telecasting the free as well as the pay channels of the proforma defen dants. For this purpose the answering defendant No.3 has obtained a valid licens ed from the authorities concerned for running a cable television network in Rang apara area. 6. On bare perusal of the para No.11 of the written statement quoted above and also the documents annexed to the written statement in support of the fact m entioned in para No.11 of the written statement, it appears that the defendant N o.1, Rangapara Cable TV Network is a cable operator or/service provider register ed under Section 4 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. 7. Having regard to the facts discussed above, the appropriate remedy for t he plaintiff for settlement of the disputes of the present nature is to approach the appellate Tribunal established under Section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory A uthority of India Act, 1997. Accordingly, the plaintiff is directed to approach the appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Au thority of India Act 1997. 8. For the reasons discussed above, the Title Suit No.76 of 2006 of the Cou rt of Munsiff, Tezpur is barred by Section 15 of the TRAI Act 1997. Accordingly, plaint of the T.S. No.76 of 2006 is rejected.