HARIKA CABLE VISION Vs USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.
- Case No.BROADCASTING PETITION/347/2011
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a notice directing a cable operator to stop transmitting beyond its authorised network area rests on an allegation of such transgression, and an earlier adjudication between the same parties has found that the transgression was not proved, the notice founded on that allegation cannot be sustained. Where a petitioner pleads that a public notice issued under Clause 4.3 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation, 2004 was published in only one newspaper, and the respondent does not deny that averment in its reply, the fact is taken as established, and the public notice so published cannot be sustained.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
J U D G M E N T
S.B. Sinha
In this petition the Petitioner questions the legality and/or validity of a notice dated 1.7.2011 and a public notice dated 5.8.2011, issued under Clauses 4.1 and 4.3 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation, 2004 (The Regulations).
The fact of the matter having been noticed by us in Petition No.400 (C)/2010, the same may not be reiterated.
The impugned notice dated 1.7.2011 reads as under:- “Even after repeated requests/ demands you have failed to stop transgressing into the areas of i.e. Manchikalapudi, Sivaluru, Siripuram, Pidaparru, Kancharlapalem, Nelapadu, Eerukalapudi, Bodduluripadu Alapadu, Mandur, Ambedkarnagar, Pedapudi, Vamanaguntavaripalem Buthumalli, Champadu villages and other areas in Tenali town at Guntur District which is beyond your network areas as mentioned in the subscription agreement and you are un-authorisedly transmitting the signals of ETV and ETV-2 channels beyond the areas, which you are not authorized to do.”
According to the Petitioner it has not transgressed its area of operation. Moreover in Petition No.400 (C)/2010, we found that the Respondent could not prove any act of transgression of areas on the part of the Petitioner.
Moreover, the Petitioner in para 22 of the petition has raised a contention that the public notice dated 5.8.2011 under Clause 4.3 of the Regulation was published only in one newspaper.
Respondent in its reply did not deny or dispute the said contention. In that view of the matter, the impugned notice and the public notice cannot be sustained. They are set aside accordingly.
This petition is allowed without any order as to costs.
(S.B. Sinha) Chairperson (P.K. Rastogi) Member February 8, 2012 `ns’
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free