THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.28536 OF 2009 Dated 6th April, 2010 Between: Kavali Cable Vision …Petitioner And The Deputy Superintendent of Police and five others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G.Pedababu Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5: Sri L.Venkateswar Rao The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to act upon the petitioner’s complaint by initiating appropriate prosecution against respondents 3 to 5. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the said respondents to stop and arrest illegal transmission of signals by respondents 3 to 5. The petitioner is a service provider having agreement with the broadcasters for transmission of signals in Kavali town. Similarly respondents 3 to 5 are also service providers. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 3 to 5 have been undertaking unauthorised activity of providing signals in Kavali area over which the petitioner has rights to transmit signals. The petitioner submitted a report before I-Town Police Station, Kavali, which was registered as Crime No.176 of 2009 on 13.12.2009 for the offence under Section 63 of the Copy Rights Act. Not being satisfied with the said action, the petitioner filed the present writ petition claiming the above relief. This Court, by order dated 31.12.2009, while ordering notice before admission, directed respondents 1 and 2 to see that no illegal activity with regard to transmission and distribution of signals is committed. Respondents 3 to 5 filed a counter-affidavit along with vacate stay application, wherein while denying that they have committed any offence, they stated that they are service providers under appropriate agreements with the broadcasters; that the petitioner does not have exclusive right to provide transmission service in Kavali area and that they are also entitled to provide such service in the said area. They have also taken the stand that if there is a dispute between two or more service providers, the aggrieved party is entitled to avail the remedy under Section 14 (a) (ii) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (for short “the Act”). It is further stated that in the guise of implementing the interim order passed by this Court, respondents 1 and 2 have prevented respondents 3 to 5 from providing cable services in Kavali area. I have heard Sri G.Pedababu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri L.Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondents 1 and 2. As regards the first limb of the prayer, it is not in dispute that a crime has already been registered. Whether respondents 3 to 5 have committed any offence, as alleged by the petitioner, will be investigated into by respondents 1 and 2 and appropriate report/charge sheet is required to be filed. Therefore, the prayer made to this extent has become infructuous. With regard to the relief claimed by the petitioner relating to direction to respondents 1 and 2 to prevent respondents 3 to 5 from illegal transmission of signals, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5, under Section 14 of the Act, a service provider is entitled to raise a dispute before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal. Unless the petitioner raises such a dispute and gets the same adjudicated in his favour, it is not permissible for the police to interfere with the activity being undertaken by respondents 3 to 5. Any direction given to the police, in this regard, would amount to entrusting the power of adjudication to them on the nature of the activity being carried on by respondents 3 to 5. In this view of the matter, the second part of the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 14 of the Act. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, interim order dated 31.12.2009 is vacated; WPMP No.37110 of 2009 and WVMP No.77 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 6th April, 2010 Note: Issue C.C in one week. vrn