Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
Asianet Satellite Communication Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Star India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 5861 of 2018, W.P.(C) 5863 of 2018
Decided On : 30-05-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Mr. Jayant Mehta, Ms. Ayushi Gaur, Mr. Vinod Shankar, Mr. Atul Vinod and Ms. Amrita Cheema
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Chidambaram and Mr. Amit Sibal, Mr. Kunal Tandon, Mr. Shiddharth Chopra, Mr. Shashank Shekher, Ms. Niti Jain, Mr. Prateek Jain, Ms. Sneha Jain, Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Mr. Aditya Swarup, Mr. Ambar Bhushan and Mr. Vinay Tripathi
The need for expedited resolution of disputes due to the monopolistic position of the Broadcaster.
Headnote:
Telecommunication Disputes - Broadcasting and Cable Services - 2012 Regulations - The court discussed the reasons for rejecting the interim prayers made by the petitioners, the nature of RIO based agreements, and the issue of discrimination in fixed fee terms offered by the Broadcaster. The court emphasized the need for the Tribunal to decide disputes with expedition due to the monopolistic position of the Broadcaster.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged the interim order passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) regarding the disposal of applications filed by the petitioners in Broadcasting Petitions No. 150/2018 and 173/2018.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the need for the Tribunal to decide disputes with expedition due to the monopolistic position of the Broadcaster.
Issues: The disparity in fixed fee terms offered by the Broadcaster, the nature of RIO based agreements, and the need for expedited resolution of disputes due to the Broadcaster's monopolistic position.
Ratio Decidendi: The court refrained from interfering with the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the need for expedited resolution of disputes due to the Broadcaster's monopolistic position.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal was requested to expedite the final adjudication.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
CAVEAT No. 522/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 5861/2018
CAVEAT No. 523/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 5863/2018
1. Since, appearance has been put in on behalf of the Caveator, the same is discharged.
C.M. APPL. No.22819/2018 IN W.P.(C) No. 5861/2018
C.M. APPL. No.22825/2018 IN W.P.(C) No. 5863/2018
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) No. 5861/2018 & C.M. APPL. No. 22818/2018
W.P.(C) No. 5863/2018 & C.M. APPL. No. 22824/2018
3. This writ petition is directed against the interim order dated 23.05.2018, passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (hereafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’).
4. By virtue of the impugned order, two applications M.A. No. 128/2018 and 127/2018, filed in Broadcasting Petitions No. 150/2018 and 173/2018, preferred by the petitioners were have been disposed of.
5. The petitioners have approached this Court for the second time. In the first instance, the petitioners had filed writ petitions challenging the order dated 18.04.2018, passed by the Tribunal.
6. These writ petitions were numbered as W.P.(C) Nos. 4408/2018 and 4409/2018. The said writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 16.05.2018. The rationale which propelled this Court to set aside the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 18.04.2018, was that the order did not set out the reasons for rejecting the interim prayers made by the petitioners.
6.1 In the impugned order, though, broadly, the following reasons have been set forth:
(i) First, that the agreement between the contesting parties came to an end on 31.03.2018. Since, no agreement could be arrived at between them, respondent no.1, i.e. Star India Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘Star’) was entitled to stop the transmission of signals under the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) Regulations, 2012 (in short ‘2012 Regulations’).
(ii) Second, the petitioner, itself, had filed a broadcasting petition seeking an order for arriving at an agreement, albeit, on RIO basis w.e.f. 01.04.2018.
(iii) Third, in order to prevent injury to the parties, which includes the petitioners herein, the Tribunal generally grants time to the parties to arrive at either a negotiated agreement or the statutory right to exercise the option of entering into a RIO based agreement. In the interregnum, continued transmission of signals to a MSO stands protected by interim order passed by the Tribunal. Such orders have regularly been passed by the Tribunal after replacement of the earlier regime (i.e. the analog regime) with the new regime i.e., Digital Addressable System (in short ‘DAS’).
(iv) Fourth, since the enunciation of the DAS regime, many MSOs have preferred petitions seeking RIO based agreement.
(v) Fifth, Cost Per Subscriber (CPS) is not comparable if one MSO enters into a negotiated agreement while, the other MSO has, in his favour, a RIO based agreement. The negotiated agreement is imbued with many variable factors.
(vi) Sixth, the petitioner in the past had preferred petitions, whereby, challenge was laid to the RIO terms offered by Star. These petitions were numbered as: B.P. No. 95/2017 and 229/2017. B.P. No. 229/2017 was, ultimately, withdrawn on 19.07.2017, pending its disposal, an interim order dated 31.05.2017, was passed which contained a similar direction, which is, that an interconnect agreement should be signed by the parties based on published RIO terms.
(vii) Seventh, parties should, pending disposal of the main petition, comply with the regulatory regime. It would, thus, be difficult to hold, pending adjudication of the main dispute, that the RIO terms offered by Star were bad in law.
(viii) Eight, under the 2012 Regulations, the RIO terms offered by the Broadcaster can be challenged before the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). The petitioner has not filed any complaint with TRAI, on this score. So far as parity, equality and non-discrimination are concerned, these issues can easily be decided if
