Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2518
2011 (4) CTC 369, 2011 (6) MLJ 281
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. DHANAPALAN
Cable Operators Association of Tamizhagam, rep. by its President, A.P. Muruhkadaasan
Versus
The Commissioner of Police/Authorized Officer, Greater Chennai, Egmore & Others
W.P.No.28283 of 2010
Decided On: 12-05-2011
For the Petitioner:V. Ayyadurai, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2 - S. Ramasamy, Addl. Advocate General, R3 - J. Ravindran, Advocate.
Headnote:
CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS (REGULATION) ACT, 1995 - SECTION 4A - TRANSMISSION OF PROGRAMMES THROUGH ADDRESSABLE SYSTEM - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - LOCUS STANDI - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - COGNIZABLE OFFENCE - COMPLAINT BY AUTHORISED OFFICER - SECTION 18 - JURISDICTION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a registered society representing cable operators in Tamil Nadu, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent, a statutory authority under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, to take appropriate action against the second and third respondents for allegedly airing certain pay channels into the basic tier, i.e. free-to-air signals transmitted without the help of Set Top Boxes, in contravention of Section 4(A) of the said Act. The petitioner contended that the transmission of signals were recorded on 16.03.2010 which revealed that a number of Pay Channel signals were unauthorisedly transmitted in Free-To-Air basic Tier. Hence, the petitioner Association made a representation dated 29.03.2010 before the 1st respondent who is competent to take appropriate action in law. Despite that the 1st respondent herein neglected to act according to law which resulted in causing continuous loss to the Cable Operators, which in turn affects the trade and livelihood of the Cable Operators. Hence, the petitioner approached this court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner did not have the locus standi to file the petition. The court further held that even if the petition was maintainable, it was devoid of merit as the petitioner had failed to establish that there was a legal right accrued to him and that the authority had failed to perform the statutory duty.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had the locus standi to file the writ petition? 2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable? 3. Whether the petitioner had established that there was a legal right accrued to him and that the authority had failed to perform the statutory duty?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner did not have the locus standi to file the writ petition as he was not personally affected by the impugned act and his fundamental rights had not been violated. The court further held that the petitioner had not filed the petition in public interest and had not disclosed the circumstances which prevented the affected persons from approaching the court. 2. The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner did not have the locus standi to file the petition. 3. The court held that the petitioner had failed to establish that there was a legal right accrued to him and that the authority had failed to perform the statutory duty.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed on both the grounds of maintainability and merits.
1. This writ petition is filed for a direction to the first respondent to take appropriate action against the 2nd and 3rd respondents based on the complaint of the petitioner, dated 29.03.2010.
2. Facts of the case as put forth in the affidavit would run thus:
(i) The petitioner Association is a registered Society incorporated in terms of the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It has 25 members as on date and it has been formed to protect the interest and welfare of Cable Operators in the State of Tamil Nadu.
(ii) The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", was enacted to regulate the operation of Cable Television Networks in the country and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. By virtue of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2002, Section 4A (Transmission of programmes through addressable system) was inserted to the principal Act. Sub-Section (1) of the said section 4A of the said Act provides that where the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make it obligatory for every cable operator to transmit or retransmit programme of any pay channel through an addressable system with effect from such date as may be specified for different States, cities, towns or area, as the case may be. By virrtue of the Notification issued by the Government of India in S.O.39 (E) dated 14.01.2003, among other Cities, the Chennai Metropolitan Area has been notified as Conditional Access System (CAS) area.
(iii) While so, some of the Cable Operators have raised an issue that 2nd and 3rd respondents herein have been airing certain pay channels into the basic tier, i.e. free to air signals transmitted without the help of Set Top Boxes in contravention of Section 4 (A) of the said Act. Because of such illegal transmission of Pay Channel signals without Set Top Boxes as Free-to-Air Channels, it is difficult for the Operators of Chennai Metropolitan to carry out their Trade in strict adherence to the various provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder besides sustaining loss. Every Cable Operator is to receive signals from the Multi System Operator(MSO) and supply the same to the houses in their respective areas through Closed Path and that the subscriber would get the signals of channels to their choice.
(iv) There are two kinds of Television Signals commonly known as Pay Channels and Free-To-Air Channels. The Chennai Metropolitan Area is notified under Section 4-A of the said Act. The above said two system of transmission of Television Signals are permissible. As a matter of fact, only one Multi System Operator for the whole of Chennai has been granted with licence and act as sole MSO. The 3rd respondent is legally obligated to transmit Television signals without overlapping and in conformity with the provisions of the Act. The Cable Operators having been duly registered with the authority, they are empowered to retransmit the Television signals through Cable without any decoding to the customer. It is further submitted that the Cable Operators are authorized to collect the prescribed amount from their respective consumers to whom the Set Top Boxs are provided for viewing the Pay Channels, at the additional rates to that of Free-To-Air Channel-basic tier.
(v) While that being so, it came to light that the 3rd respondent herein, re-transmitted the signals of Pay Channels through Free-to-Air basic Tier. As a result of which, the Cable Operators sustained loss of income. In these circumstances, the transmission of signals were recorded on 16.03.2010 which revealed that a number of Pay Channel signals were unauthorisedly transmitted in Free-To-Air basic Tier. Hence, the petitioner Association made a representation dated 29.03.2010 before the 1st respondent who is competent to take appropriate action in law. Despite that the 1st
