Guidelines prescribed for filing PIL not complied.

A. Kulasekaran, J.

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Declaration declaring that the guidelines issued by the second respondent i.e., “Broadcasting Companies and/or cable network companies shall not be eligible to collectively own more than 20% of the total equity of the applicant company at any time during the license period. Similarly the applicant company not to have more than 20% equity share in a Broadcasting Companies and/or cable network company” has been violated by the third respondent and consequently issue a direction directing the first and second respondent to initiate steps in accordance with law to revoke/suspend the license granted to the third respondent in establishing DTH platform.

2. The learned senior counsel Mr. T.V. Ramanujun appearing for the petitioner submitted that the first and second respondents have decided to permit Direct-to-Home, hereinafter referred to as “DTH” Television service in KU Band in India. DTH broadcasting service, refers to distribution of multi channel TV programme in KU band by using satellite systems by providing TV signals direct to subscribers premises without passing through an intermediary such as cable operators. One who avail the reception and distribution of the said DTH television service in the KU band shall obtain a licence under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The respondents 1 and 2 prescribed certain guidelines for issuing the same. The said guidelines contain eligibility criteria in which clause 6 stipulates that broadcasting companies and/or cable network companies shall not be eligible to collectively own more than 20% of the total equity of applicant company at any time during the licence period. Similarly, the applicant company not to have more than 20% equity share in a broadcasting and/or cable networking company. The third respondent applied for the said licence. The fourth respondent is having majority controlling interest in the third respondent company and also sixth respondent i.e., Sun TV Limited, a company doing business in broadcasting and seventh respondent i.e., Kal Cables Private Limited, a company doing business of cable i.e., receiving signals from broadcasting companies and transmitting the same to the cable operators. It is admitted by the respondents 1 and 2 that the object behind fixing ceiling of 20% shareholding by a broadcasting company into a DTH company is to prevent vertical monopoly between the broadcaster and the distribution platform. Similarly, restraining shareholding of a Cable TV company into a DTH company is to prevent horizontal monopoly over distribution platform. If such restriction is not imposed, there is every possibility that a DTH service provider, which is controlled by a broadcasting company, may not provide its platform to the channels of other broadcasters. Similarly, if the distribution platform like DTH and cable are allowed to be controlled by the same entities, unreasonable terms and conditions will be demanded not only from the broadcasters for carrying out the content, but also it will lead to exploitation of the subscribers for lack of competition in the market. It is also admitted by the respondents 1 and 2 that clause 3 and its sub-clauses of Interconnect regulations are meant to ensure that the content of the broadcasters is available to various distribution platforms on a non-discriminatory basis. This clause further supplements and complements the provisions contained in the DTH guidelines and the restrictions of 20% imposed in shareholding therefore are meant to ensure the interest of the broadcasters. In this case, according to the Red-Herring prospectus, the fourth respondent is holding 96.67%, 89.9% and 75% share respectively in the respondents 3, 6 and 7. Without lifting the corporate veil of the third respondent, the first and second respondents have issued licence to it in violation of clause 6 of the guidelines mentioned above thereby allo