Case: DIGI CABLE NETWORK (INDIA) PVT. LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

3. The controversy involved in this appeal lies in a narrow compass as would be clear from the facts stated hereinbelow.By letter dated 12.06.2012 (Annexure P-2) the appellant was granted permission by the Government of India under Rule 11C of the Cable Television Network (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Rules?) for operating as Multi System Operator (MSO) in the Digital Addressable System (DAS) notified areas vide notification dated 11.11.2011.This permission was, however, cancelled by the Government of India vide order dated 03.09.2014 on the ground that the Ministry of Home Affairs has denied issuance of ?security clearance? to the appellant. In other words, since the Ministry of Home Affairs did not grant security clearance to the appellant, the permission initially granted to the appellant vide letter dated 12.06.2012 was cancelled.Challenging the order of cancellation of grant of permission, the appellant filed writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Mumbai. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of cancellation as being just, legal and proper which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court by the unsuccessful writ petitioner.

Reasoning: 11. In our considered opinion, the impugned order of cancellation was passed in conformity with the requirements of Rule 11C of the Rules and hence it was rightly upheld by the High Court in impugned order.It is clear from mere reading of the Rule 11C(1) that grant of permission is subject to issue of security clearance from the Central Government to the applicant (appellant in this case).In this case, admittedly the appellant failed to obtain the security clearance as provided under Rule 11C of the Rules. It was a mandatory requirement as provided under Rule 11C of the Rules. Since the grant of permission was subject to obtaining of the security clearance from the concerned Ministry, the competent authority was justified in cancelling the conditional permission for want of security clearance.Learned counsel for the appellant, however, argued that the appellant was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before cancelling the permission and, therefore, the impugned cancellation order is rendered bad in law having been passed without following the principle of natural justice and fair play.We find no merit in this submission.Having perused the note filed by the Union of India, which resulted in cancellation of permission, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant was not entitled to claim any prior notice before passing of the cancellation order in question.In other words, we are of the view that the principles of natural justice were not violated in this case in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ex-Armymen?s Protection Services Private Limited (supra) inasmuch as the appellant was not entitled to claim any prior notice before cancellation of permission.