TAJ TELEVISON INDIA (PVT.) LTD. Vs AKASH CABLE

2. The Petitioner filed Petition No. 453 (c) of 2011 against the Respondent herein which was disposed of by an order dated 08.12.2011 in the following terms:- “We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. However, an undertaking has been given by the Petitioner through its learned counsel that the Petitioner shall keep its operation strictly confined to 25 areas mentioned in Annexure ‘A’ appended to the MoU/Agreement dated 9.8.2011.

A further undertaking has been given by the Petitioner that it shall remove the optical fibre as also all banners and hoardings in the additional areas namely the areas within the district of Guntur including the area of Mangalagiri.

Mr. Nittin Bhatia, appearing on behalf of the Respondent states that in view of the aforementioned undertaking, the Respondent shall not give effect to the public notice for the present. However, in the event it is found that the petitioner has violated the said undertaking, the public notice may be given effect to.

Mr. Sunder Khatri appearing for the Respondent has drawn our attention to the fact that in this Petition, a prayer has also been made to the effect that the Respondent be directed to enter into a fresh agreement in respect of other areas of the district of Guntur and Mangalagiri. Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to a letter of the Respondent dated 9.11.2011. A perusal of the said letter would show that the same does not contain essential informations therewith the requisite documents for the purpose of obtaining the supply of signals for new areas have been annexed.

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served if this Petition is disposed of on the aforementioned undertaking given by the Petitioner and the statement made before us by Mr.Bhatia, leaving the Petitioner to enforce its right in terms of Clause 3.2 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation,2004 (as amended from time to time) to make fresh request to the Respondent for expansion of the areas open. The Respondent may consider the request made by the Petitioner to the aforementioned effect as and when received in terms of the aforementioned Regulations.”

3. Concedingly, the Petitioner furnished the said undertaking. The Respondent, however, disconnected the signals supplied to the network of the Petitioner on 13.12.2011 on the premise that on a videography taken relating to supply of signals by the Petitioner to its subscribers in the areas other than those in respect whereof an undertaking had been furnished, it was found, that the Petitioner had been committing piracy.

This petition thereafter was filed on or about 16.12.2011. Having regard to the Affidavit affirmed by the Petitioner that he had not transgressed its area of operation in violation of the undertaking which was filed in course of the said date, the Respondent was directed to restore the supply of its signals to the Petitioner’s network in the area of which the undertaking had been given.

4. Mr. Sunder Khatri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner would contend that the order of this Tribunal dated 08.12.2011 having been uploaded on 14.12.2011, the Respondent could not have discontinued supply of signals to the Petitioner’s network on 13.12.2011.

5. Learned counsel would contend that even in respect of supply of signals for the channels of ETV, it would appear that the Petitioner had been supplying signals in the entire district of Guntur on a subscriber base of 1724 and in that view of the matter, the Respondent may conduct a joint verification.

6. Mr. Malhotra, on the other hand, relying on or on the basis of some CDs which have been annexed to the reply, would contend that even on 12.12.2011, the Petitioner have been supplying signals in the areas which was outside the area of operation of the Petitioner.

Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to an Affidavit of Mr. Ravipati Venubabu, a Cameraman who purported to have acted on the instructions of Mr. K. Srinivas, Area Manager for the Respondent wherefrom it would appear that Petitioner had been supplying signals of Gemini channels and Gemini movies.

7. Before us, learned counsel has also submitted the original tapes.

The Respondent in its short Affidavit has contended that the Petitioner had distributed signals unauthorisedly in some areas, namely, Nehru Nagar, Nalla Cheruvu, Gunturuvari Thota, Potturivari Thota and Old Guntur (RTC Bus Stand Road), in violation of the said undertaking.

The question as to whether the Petitioner has transgressed its area of operation despite the undertaking given before us on 08.12.2011 is in issue.

In absence of proper gadgets, it had not been possible for the Tribunal to view the original tapes.

8. However on viewing the CDs, it appeared that it cannot definitely be concluded in absence of any assistance rendered in that behalf by the parties by way of evidence that the Petitioner had in fact been distributing supply of signals of the channels of the Respondent from its network in the aforementioned areas which are admittedly beyond the areas for which undertaking had been furnished.

9. We, therefore, for the time being, direct the Respondent to continue to supply signals of its channels in terms of this Tribunal’s Order dated 10.12.2011 with liberty to the parties hereto to conduct joint verification of the areas in question.

Further, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, hearing of this petition is expedited.

The contentions raised by the Respondent herein in its short Affidavit, it goes without saying, shall be considered at an appropriate stage and/or final hearing of the petition.

……………… (S.B. Sinha) Chairperson

…………….. (P.K. Rastogi) Member

HKC/