IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2003 of 2011 Date of Decision : February 08, 2011. M/s Kansan News Private Limited .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.S.Mehandiratta and Mr.Ravi Sodhi, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr.Puneet Bali and Mr.Hitten Nehra, Advocates, for the caveator-respondent Nos.3 to 5. Mr.Salil Sagar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Samrath Sagar, Advocate, for the caveator-respondent No.6. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-Company seeks a mandamus to direct respondent Nos.3 to 5 to provide un-interpreted signals and re-connect the audio and video signals to their full strength and clarity. The petitioner also seeks a direction for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into various issues raised in this petition, besides quashing the public notice (Annexure P-19) whereby respondent No.4 has decided not to re-transmit the channel “DAY and NIGHT NEWS” w.e.f. the date of expiry of notice period. C.W.P.No .2003 of 2011 2 2] The petitioner is a Media Company who had been granted licence on 19.3.2009 by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India to uplink its news and current affairs T.V. Channel by the name of 'Day and Night' and to telecast related programs on the same. The 'Day and Night T.V. Channel' is stated to be the first satellite regional TV at Chandigarh telecasting programms in three languages with 24 hours x 7 days service to viewer public. The petitioner has for the purpose of telecasting its programms, entered into three agreements dated 1.8.2010 (Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-2A, respectively) with respondent Nos.3 to 5 who are Multi System Operators within the meaning of Regulation 2 (m) of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Inter-connection Regulations, 2004 (for short '2004 Regulations'). 3] It is averred that after the smooth telecast of the petitioner's programs for a short duration, respondent Nos.3 to 5 started interfering with the airwaves causing repeated interruption in the transmission of signals for the reasons other than the technical snags, the details whereof are given in paragraph 3 (vi) of the petition. The petitioner is said to have protested against the undeclared censorship but having failed to extract any response, served the respondents with a legal notice dated 17.1.2011 (Annexure P-18) which was duly responded denying the petitioner's allegations. The acrimonious relationship between the parties has finally culminated into the issuance of impugned public notice (Annexure P-19) whereby respondent Nos.3 to 5 have invoked Clause 8 (d) of the C.W.P.No .2003 of 2011 3 agreement(s) dated 1.8.2010 and have decided to discontinue the re- transmission of the signals of the petitioner's channel from their network w.e.f. 20.2.2011. 4] The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. 5] Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are on caveat. 6] Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and the pleadings/documents relied upon by them have been perused. 7] It is urged on behalf of the respondent-caveators that the petitioner has got an efficacious alternative remedy to approach the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (for short the `1997 Act'). They have referred to the notification dated 9.1.2004 to contend that the 'broadcasting' and 'cable services' have also been brought within the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Tribunal though it is maintained on behalf of the petitioner that the phrase 'Service Provider' as defined under Section 2 (j) of 1997 Act, means the “Government as a service provider and includes a licensee” only and a Multi System Operator apparently does not fall within the same. 8] The counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6, however, re-iterate that the Tribunal is competent to adjudicate the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner and on instructions from their authorized representative, who is present in Court, he states at the bar that they shall raise no objection against the jurisdictional competence of the Tribunal. C.W.P.No .2003 of 2011 4 9] In this view of the matter and as agreed to by learned counsel for the petitioner also but without expressing any views on the merits of the rival contentions, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 14 of the 1997 Act, within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 may also put in their appearance before the Tribunal on the very first date of hearing, if so advised. Owing to the fact that the agreement(s) between the parties are valid till July 31, 2011 unless renewed, the Tribunal, which is statedly headed by a former Hon'ble Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is requested to make an endeavour to decide the matter at the earliest subject to its convenience and/or the priority of other urgent matters. 10] Meanwhile, keeping in view (i) the obligation of a Multi System Operator to re-transmit the signals received from the Broadcaster on a non-discriminatory basis (Ref.: Regulation 3.2 of the 2004 Regulations); (ii) the rights and legitimate expectations of the viewers and; (iii) prohibition against any Agreement contrary or inconsistent with the 2004 Regulations (Ref.: Regulation No.5) and the petitioner having made out a prima-facie case, it is directed as an interim measure that the operation of the public notice (Annexure P-19) shall remain stayed and respondent Nos.3 to 5 are directed to provide un-interpreted signals and re- connect the audio and video signals to their full strength and clarity to the petitioner's channel named 'Day and Night' channel, subject to the C.W.P.No .2003 of 2011 5 petitioner approaching the Tribunal within the stipulated period and payments to be made by it as per the agreed terms and conditions. If the learned Tribunal holds that notwithstanding the plea taken by the respondents the nature of dispute does not fall within its purview, it is further directed that the ad-interim directions shall continue to operate for a period of two weeks from the date of receiving the order of the learned Tribunal, so as to enable the petitioner to approach an appropriate forum. 11] Ordered accordingly. 12] Dasti on the same day. February 08, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE