IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21074 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. KERALA ASSOCIATION FOR PHYSIOTHERAPISTS' CO-ORDINATION, STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY-GOPAKUMAR PANICKER. 2. INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSIOTHERAPISTS, KERALA CHAPTER,'VRINDAVAN', KATTACHALKUZHI P.O., BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR-JIM GOPALAKRISHNAN. BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING, SASTHRY BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. MATHRUBHOOMI PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR M.J.KRISHNAMOHAN MEMORIAL BUILDING, K.P.KESAVA MENON ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 3. ASIANET COMMUNICATIONS LTD., PULIYARAKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695573. 4. INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE BRANCH, I.M.A. HEAD QUARTERS, CHAKKAI, BYE-PASS ROAD, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695029. 5. DR.K.M.ABDULLA, THE CHAIRMAN, ANTI-QUACKERY COMMITTEE, INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, KERALA STATE BRANCH, KADHIKRAKATH, NUT STREET P.O., VADAKARA-673 104. WPC NO.21074/2011 -2- 6. DR.J.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, THE STATE SECRETARY, INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, KERALA STATE BRANCH,KADHIKRAKATH, NUT STREET P.O., VADAKARA-673 104. 7. DR.JAYARAM, PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE PHYSIATRIST ASSOCIATION, PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, PARIYARAM P.O., KANNUR- 670 502. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.21074/11 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF WPC NO.1262/2004 WITH EXHIBITS. EXT.P2: COPY OF NEWS PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 29/7/2011. EXT.P3: COPY OF LEAFLETS/NEWS LETTERS ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF NEWS REPORTS PUBLISHED BY 6TH RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21074 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The prayers sought in the writ petition reads as under:- “(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order directing the 1st respondent to pass necessary orders to the 2nd and 3rd respondents and to all publications to desist from publishing or giving information which is the subject matter of Ext.P1 writ petition. (ii) pass any order or writ against respondents 4 to 7 from publishing or giving information through or audio or visual media regarding an issue taken in by Ext.P1 writ petition”. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the transmissions done by 2nd and 3rd respondents is directly related to the proceedings in WP(C) No.1262/2004 pending before this Court and therefore the provisions of Rule 6(f) of Programme and Advertising Codes prescribed under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 are attracted and hence the Central Government is bound to exercise its powers under Section 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. 3. In my view, there are two impediments on the way of the petitioners. First one is that to seek writ of mandamus, there must be a demand and refusal. Petitioners do not have a case WPC No. 21074/11 :2 : that they have demanded action by making any application before the Central Government or that any such request has been turned down by the Central Government. In such circumstances, the requirement to ask for a writ of mandamus has not been satisfied. 4. That apart, in order to attract the provisions of Rule 6 (f) of the 1994 Rules relied on by the petitioners, there must be a finding that the contents of the programme contains anything amounting to contempt of court. No court has so far found that anything done by respondents 2 and 3 amount to contempt of court and that decision cannot be left to the 1st respondent, but has to be taken by a court of law exercising powers under the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, on that ground also the prayer sought has to be declined. In that view, leaving it open to the petitioners to seek their remedies in accordance with law, the writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp