delhihighcourt

ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED vs SREEDEVI DIGITAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

$~18 to 20, 22 to 27 and 35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 2nd July, 2024 + CONT.CAS(C) 999/2024 ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ….. Petitioner Through Mr. Abhinav Mukherji, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Ehraz Zafar, Mr. Akash Tyagi, Mr. Pranav, Mr. Shivam Mehtorta, Ms. Tanya Gupta and Mr. Suraj, Advs. versus SREEDEVI DIGITAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ….. Respondents Through Counsel for R-1 to R-3 (appearance not given) Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil, Adv. and Mr. Arnav Mittal, GP, for R-4/UOI Mr. Ankur Sood and Ms. Romila Mandal, Advs. for R-5/TRAI 19 + CONT.CAS(C) 1000/2024 ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ….. Petitioner Through Mr. Abhinav Mukherji, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Ehraz Zafar, Mr. Akash Tyagi, Mr. Pranav, Mr. Shivam Mehtorta, Ms. Tanya Gupta and Mr. Suraj, Advs. versus SITI SIRI DIGITAL NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through Mr. K.L.N.V. Veeranjaneyuhu,
Adv. for R-2 Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil, Adv. and Mr. Arnav Mittal, GP, for R-4/UOI Mr. Ankur Sood and Ms. Romila Mandal, Advs. for R-5/TRAI 20 + CONT.CAS(C) 1001/2024 ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ….. Petitioner Through Mr. Abhinav Mukherji, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Ehraz Zafar, Mr. Akash Tyagi, Mr. Pranav, Mr. Shivam Mehtorta, Ms. Tanya Gupta and Mr. Suraj, Advs. versus THE BHIMAVARAM COMMUNITY NETWORK & ORS. ….. Respondents Through Mr. K.L.N.V. Veeranjaneyuhu, Adv. for R-2 Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil, Adv. and Mr. Arnav Mittal, GP, for R-4/UOI Mr. Ankur Sood and Ms. Romila Mandal, Advs. for R-5/TRAI 22 + CONT.CAS(C) 1003/2024 ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ….. Petitioner Through Mr. Abhinav Mukherji, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Ehraz Zafar, Mr. Akash Tyagi, Mr. Pranav, Mr. Shivam Mehtorta, Ms. Tanya Gupta and Mr. Suraj, Advs.
versus MACHILIPATNAM COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ….. Respondents Through Mr. K.L.N.V. Veeranjaneyuhu, Adv. for R-2 Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil, Adv. and Mr. Arnav Mittal, GP, for R-4/UOI Mr. Ankur Sood and Ms. Romila Mandal, Advs. for R-5/TRAI 23 + CONT.CAS(C) 1004/2024 ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ….. Petitioner Through Mr. Abhinav Mukherji, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Ehraz Zafar, Mr. Akash Tyagi, Mr. Pranav, Mr. Shivam Mehtorta, Ms. Tanya Gupta and Mr. Suraj, Advs. versus TANUKU COMMUNICATION NETWORK DIGITAL PVT. LTD. & ORS. ….. Respondents Through Mr. K.L.N.V. Veeranjaneyuhu, Adv. for R-2 Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil, Adv. and Mr. Arnav Mittal, GP, for R-4/UOI Mr. Ankur Sood and Ms. Romila Mandal, Advs. for R-5/TRAI 24 + CONT.CAS(C) 1005/2024 ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ….. Petitioner
Through Mr. Abhinav Mukherji, Sr.
Adv. with Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Ehraz Zafar, Mr. Akash Tyagi, Mr. Pranav, Mr. Shivam Mehtorta, Ms. Tanya Gupta and Mr. Suraj, Advs. versus A.C.N. CABLE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS…… Respondents Through Mr. Vineet Bhagat, Advs. for R-1 to R-7 Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil, Adv. and Mr. Arnav Mittal, GP, for R-8/UOI Mr. Ankur Sood and Ms. Romila Mandal, Advs. for R-9/TRAI 25 + CONT.CAS(C) 1006/2024 ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ….. Petitioner Through Mr. Abhinav Mukherji, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Ehraz Zafar, Mr. Akash Tyagi, Mr. Pranav, Mr. Shivam Mehtorta, Ms. Tanya Gupta and Mr. Suraj, Advs. versus ACT DIGITAL HOME ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ….. Respondents Through Mr. Vineet Bhagat, Advs. for R-1 to R-5 Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil, Adv. and Mr. Arnav Mittal, GP, for R-6/UOI Mr. Ankur Sood and Ms. Romila Mandal, Advs. for R-7/TRAI
26 + CONT.CAS(C) 1007/2024 ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ….. Petitioner Through Mr. Abhinav Mukherji, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Ehraz Zafar, Mr. Akash Tyagi, Mr. Pranav, Mr. Shivam Mehtorta, Ms. Tanya Gupta and Mr. Suraj, Advs. versus VINSAT DIGITAL PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ….. Respondents Through Mr. K.L.N.V. Veeranjaneyuhu, Adv. for R-2 Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil, Adv. and Mr. Arnav Mittal, GP, for R-4/UOI Mr. Ankur Sood and Ms. Romila Mandal, Advs. for R-5/TRAI 27 + CONT.CAS(C) 1008/2024 ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ….. Petitioner Through Mr. Abhinav Mukherji, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Ehraz Zafar, Mr. Akash Tyagi, Mr. Pranav, Mr. Shivam Mehtorta, Ms. Tanya Gupta and Mr. Suraj, Advs. versus MASTER CHANNEL COMMUNITY NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ….. Respondents Through Mr. K.L.N.V. Veeranjaneyuhu, Adv. for R-2
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil, Adv. and Mr. Arnav
Mittal, GP, for R-4/UOI Mr. Ankur Sood and Ms. Romila Mandal, Advs. for R-5/TRAI 35 + CONT.CAS(C) 998/2024 ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ….. Petitioner Through Mr. Abhinav Mukherji, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Payal Kakra, Mr. Ehraz Zafar, Mr. Akash Tyagi, Mr. Pranav, Mr. Shivam Mehtorta, Ms. Tanya Gupta and Mr. Suraj, Advs. versus A.C.N. CABLE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ….. Respondents Through Mr. Vineet Bhagat, Advs. for R-1 to R-7 Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil, Adv. and Mr. Arnav Mittal, GP, for R-8/UOI Mr. Ankur Sood and Ms. Romila Mandal, Advs. for R-9/TRAI CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
1. This hearing is being conducted through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 36239/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 999/2024 CM APPL. 36255/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 1000/2024 CM APPL. 36260/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 1001/2024 CM APPL. 36263/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 1003/2024 CM APPL. 36264/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 1004/2024 CM APPL. 36281/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 1005/2024 CM APPL. 36282/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 1006/2024 CM APPL. 36283/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 1007/2024
CM APPL. 36284/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 1008/2024 CM APPL. 36237/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 998/2024
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. The applications stand disposed of.

CONT.CAS(C) 999/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 1000/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 1001/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 1003/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 1004/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 1005/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 1006/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 1007/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 1008/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 998/2024
4. The above-noted petitions have been instituted by the petitioner seeking initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India against the respondents for alleged wilful breach and disobedience of the directions passed by this Court dated 24.06.2024. The above-noted cases raise common questions of law, and therefore are being disposed of vide this common order.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 3, learned counsel for respondent No.2, learned Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) for respondent No.4/UOI, as also, learned counsel for respondent No.5/TRAI1, are present on advance notice.

6. This Court, during the recent summer vacation, entertained the relevant writ petitions instituted by the petitioner seeking appropriate

1 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

reliefs aggrieved by the disconnection/switching off the telecast of the petitioner”s channel, viz. “TV9 Telugu” by respondent No.2 in a wilful breach of the TRAI”s Interconnection Regulations, 2017, Quality of Service Regulations, 2017 and also in violation of the mutually entered upon Agreement dated 08.05.2024, and for declaration of such acts to be illegal and unconstitutional.

7. Shorn off unnecessary details, the petitioner is a broadcaster of its channel through respondent No.2 which is a „Multi System Operator” or in other words a „service provider” under the TRAI Act, 1997 and it is alleged that the telecast has been disrupted since a new Government has been formed in the State of Andhra Pradesh, and the alleged acts are motivated on account of some political vendetta.

8. It would be suffice to state that based on the pleadings as also submissions addressed by the learned counsels for the parties , this Court passed the following direction:-

“24. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court at the outset records the submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 that the transmission of the channel of the petitioner, i.e., „TV9 Telugu” is uninterrupted and unhindered, and is being relayed in the states of Telangana, as well as Andhra Pradesh. 25. This Court also notes that the petitioner has already filed petitions before TDSAT and has approached this Court only in the interregnum, since there is no Vacation Bench in the TDSAT. 26. Accordingly, it is directed that in terms of the submission made on behalf of respondent no. 2, the transmission of the television channel, i.e., „TV9 Telugu” shall continue uninterruptedly and unhindered on the same position, as existing prior to 06th June, 2024. With regard to further grievances of the petitioner, it is noted that the petitioner has already filed the petitions before TDSAT. 27. Accordingly, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petitions. 28. The present petitions are accordingly disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.”

9. Learned counsels for the petitioner has submitted that respondents No. 1 to 3 were categorically directed to ensure that the telecast of the petitioner”s channel shall continue in terms of the position that was existing prior to 06.06.2024 and the telecast shall not be disrupted in any manner.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has alluded to the e-mail dated 27.06.2024 received at 09:17 PM from one of the consumers, to the effect that he was unable to watch TV9 on SDV cable. A photograph of the screenshot of the TV is also placed on the record, to show that TV9 Telugu Channel was not being telecast/aired on such date.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has urged that he had even made a statement before the Court on 24.06.2024 to the effect that the transmission/telecast of the channel i.e. TV9 Telugu, remain undisrupted and very well in place.

12. During the course of arguments, a suggestion was mooted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that whether or not transmission/telecast has been disrupted or not, could only be ascertained by an expert body, and therefore, a directive may be given to respondent No.5/TRAI to appoint its official to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. The said suggestion was opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No.5/TRAI.

13. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties at Bar, this Court finds that since the petitioner has already moved before the

TDSAT2, and the matters are coming up for hearing tomorrow before the said authority, the present contempt petitions, which raise disputed questions of facts cannot be entertained. It is but appropriate that the issues raised should only be decided by the competent authority i.e. TDSAT.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw the present contempt petitions with liberty to approach the TDSAT and seek appropriate redressal.

15. Learned counsels for the respondents have no objection.

16. In view of the above, the present contempt petitions are allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn. It is provided that TDSAT may also, if it deems fit, inquire into the issue raised in the present contempt petitions as to whether or not transmission of telecast has been disrupted in any manner pursuant to order passed by this Court i.e. 24.06.2024 and on such determination, may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

17. The above-noted contempt petitions are accordingly disposed of without prejudice.

2 Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. JULY 02, 2024 sp