IMPORTANT POINTS:
" The focus of the TRAI has always been to provide a level playing field to both the Broadcaster and Subscriber and it emphasises the reason for capping the discounts. As noted above, the Apex Court has considered the validity of the 2017 Regulations, though in respect of the dispute between the Broadcaster and the Distributor; whereas in the instant case, it is between the Distributor/MSO and the LCOs. It is also evident that the power to fix the rates including as to the `revenue sharing` (between the parties before the Apex Court), with reference to the provisions in the Regulations, was also a subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court, where the provisions in the relevant Tariff Order have also been adverted to. By virtue of the ruling rendered by the Apex Court, the power and authority of the TRAI in this regard stands affirmed, which cannot be re examined by this Court.
" The question mooted by the appellants with reference to the constitutional validity of the Regulations or as to the sustainability, correctness or otherwise of the `default revenue sharing ratio` is not liable to be entertained by this Court.

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

Interference declined by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions filed against some of the provisions of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Inter Connection(Addressable Systems)Regulations, 2017, providing for 'revenue sharing' between the Multi System Operator (MSO in short)and Local Cable Operator (LCO in short) and fixing a default revenue sharing ratio of “55:45” in the case of pay channels, if no Model Interconnection Agreement (MIA) is reached in between, thus giving effect to the terms of Standard Interconnection Agreement (SIA) is questioned in these appeals.

2. The challenge against the Regulations is mainly based on the contention that the second respondent/TRAI does not have any power to fix the Tariff as to the revenue sharing between the MSOs and LCOs; more so since the relevant provisions say that it has to be on the basis of mutual agreement. If the parties fail to enter into a mutual agreement, SIA is to be followed, which stipulates the ratio as aforesaid, that is always beneficial to the MSOs who consciously avoid negotiation to arrive at a mutual agreement, as the existing ratio of “12%:88%” stands increased by several folds, thus making the default clause better in terms. By virtue of the default clause, the bargaining power of the LCOs to arrive at a contract on free will as to the revenue sharing is taken away and undue benefits have been conferred upon the MSOs with unconscionable bargaining power. It is also pointed out that the learned Single Judge is not correct in relegating the appellants/petitioners to move the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) for redressal of the grievances, as the constitutional validity of the Regulations cannot be considered or adjudicated by the Tribunal, for want of authority/power/jurisdiction.

3. The pleadings and proceedings are referred to as given in W.A.No.278 of 2019, except where reference is made separately, based on the context. The basic judgment was rendered by the learned single Judge in W.P(C) No.6681 of 2018 (which is under challenge in W.A.No.278 of 2019), which came to be followed in the connected cases, declining interference, in turn, giving rise to the appeals concerned.

4. Heard Mr. M.A. Abdul Hakhim, the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Jaishankar V. Nair, the learned Central Government Counsel for Union of India and TRAI and Shri P. Gopinath Menon, the learned Sr. Counsel for the Multi System Operator/the third respondent.

5. To understand the scope of the dispute, it may be better to have an idea as to the topography of the field. Earlier, almost upto 1992, the system followed for transmission of signals was 'Analogous system' whereby a bunch of channels were being provided for a lump sum. Later, in the year 2003, the first respondent brought about 'Conditional Access System' (CAS), introducing Set Top Box. By virtue of this, the distribution of 'pay channels' was sought to be governed by a Set Top Box, whereas 'free channels' were available even without a Set Top box. By the passage of time, 'Digital Addressable System' (DAS) was introduced in almost all parts of the country, whereby 'Free to Air' Channels as well as 'Pay Channels' were made available through the Set Top Box. As on date it is stated that a new system is being introduced under the name and style as OTT (Over the Top) where the service is rendered without cable through internet. 'Portability' is also stated as being introduced whereby the customer is stated as the king and option is given to change the service provider, if the service rendered is not of the optimum quality or the customer is having any dissatisfaction either with the quality or rate or with such other service.

6. The appellant Association claims to be representing as many as 62 different Local Cable Operators functioning in the State of Kerala. The said Association filed writ petitions to protect the interest of its members, who