W.P. (C) No. 10505/2009 Page 1 21. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10505/2009 Date of decision: 29th July, 2009 ICOS ENTERTAINMENT ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Vineet Bhagat & Ms. Neha Jain, Advocates. versus ZEE TURNEE LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. T. Singhdev, Advocate for respondent No. 1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? O R D E R % 1. The petitioner herein has impugned orders dated 3rd July, 2009 and 15th July, 2009 passed by Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, who is present on advance notice. 3. By the interim order, the respondent No. 1 has been directed to W.P. (C) No. 10505/2009 Page 2 continue to supply the feed/signals to the petitioner subject to the petitioner depositing subscription charges payable on subscriber base of Rs.15,000/- per month with effect from 19th December, 2008. 4. On the question of subscriber base, the petitioner claims that he has 5460 subscribers whereas the respondent No. 1 claims that signal feed is being supplied to more than 30000 subscribers. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 states that they are relying upon documents obtained by them from Star TV that subscriber base of the petitioner is more than 30000. The said document is disputed by the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that it does not pertain to the petitioner as the petitioner is a partnership firm and the certificate issued by Star TV relates to DENICOS Cable Network Private Limited. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that DENICOS Cable Network Private Limited is a separate company, which covers a larger area and the petitioner is not associated with them. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, states that the address mentioned in the invoice or notice issued by Star T.V. is the same and the petitioner has taken over the said company. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the billing raised by Star T.V. against the petitioner is on a much lower subscriber base. The statements made by the counsel for the petitioner on the question of the petitioner being a different entity and on the subscriber base payments to Star T.V. are disputed. W.P. (C) No. 10505/2009 Page 3 5. This Court while exercising writ jurisdiction is not exercising appellate powers. The impugned order passed by the tribunal is an interim order. Learned tribunal has also directed verification of the subscriber base by a joint survey. In view of the conflicting figures with regard to the subscriber base, the learned tribunal has taken an in between figure of 15,000/- for the purpose of interim order. The tribunal has also directed that payments made by the petitioner are subject to the outcome of the final decision. In these circumstances, I do not think it will be appropriate for this Court to fix a different figure of subscriber base and modify the interim order passed by the tribunal. 6. On the question of the date from which arrears should be payable, learned tribunal has taken into consideration the interim order passed by them on 19th December, 2008, whereby operation of public notice dated 3rd November, 2008 was stayed. The said public notice had been issued by respondent No. 1 for terminating signal feed to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petition in which the interim order was passed was disposed of by the order dated 8th May, 2009 directing parties to initiate settlement/agreement with the condition that the signal feed will not be disconnected till 30th June, 2009. 7. The parties tried to negotiate a settlement/agreement but failed and thereupon the petitioner again approached the appellate tribunal. Interim orders dated 3rd July, 2009 and 15th July, 2009 have been passed in the W.P. (C) No. 10505/2009 Page 4 said petition. The date 19th December, 2008 fixed by the Appellate Tribunal in the interim order has basis and is the date on which the first interim order was passed. I do not think while exercising power of judicial review in a writ petition this Court should interfere with the interim orders passed by the tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that the survey is being delayed by the respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 assures this Court and states that the respondent No. 1 does not want to delay the survey and are extending full cooperation but it is the petitioner, who is not cooperating. It is obvious that both parties have to ensure that the direction of the tribunal for joint survey is complied with in letter and spirit. 9. The writ petition is disposed of. 10. It is clarified that observations made in this order are for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either side. SANJIV KHANNA, J. JULY 29, 2009 VKR