Satish K. Agnihotri, K.K. Sasidharan, JJ.

The first batch of intra-court appeals (W.A. Nos. 818 and 819 of 2015) are at the instance of the Central Government and the Challenge is to the common order dated 5 September 2014 in W.P. Nos. 23444 and 23445 of 2014, setting aside the orders passed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, cancelling the registrations given to M/s. Kal Cables Pvt. Ltd. to operate as Multi System Operators to provide Cable Television Network Services with Digital Addressable System in Chennai Metropolitan Area and other notified areas in phase II Cities.

2. The other batch of writ appeals (W.A. Nos. 895 to 898 of 2015) are at the instance of Sun TV Network and Mr. Dayanidhi Maran and the prayer is to expunge the disparaging remarks made by the learned Single Judge without making them parties to the writ petitions or giving them an opportunity of hearing.

W.A. Nos. 818 and 819 of 2015

3. The first respondent, M/s. Kal Cables Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Cable Operator") was granted permission to operate as Multi System Operator in respect of Chennai Metropolitan Area for a period of ten years with effect from 30 September 2006 vide order dated 19 June 2012. Similarly, the Cable Operator was given a provisional registration as Multi System Operator for operating in the area notified under Section 4-A of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "Cable TV Act, 1995") vide order dated 7 March 2013.

4. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting vide orders dated 20 August 2014 cancelled the permanent as well as provisional registrations without notice.

5. The Cable Operator challenged the impugned orders in W.P. Nos. 23444 of 2014 and 23445 of 2014.

6. The learned Single Judge scanned the statutory provisions governing the field and having found that opportunity of hearing was not given before passing adverse orders, allowed the writ petitions. Feeling aggrieved, the Central Government has come with writ appeals in W.A. Nos. 818 and 819 of 2015.

7. While allowing the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge made certain adverse remarks against Mr. Dayanidhi Maran who is not presently associated with the Cable Operator. Similar disparaging remarks were made against M/s. Sun TV Network Ltd. also. Since concerned parties were not heard before making such adverse comments and as there was no need or necessity to make such observation while deciding the legality and correctness of the impugned orders passed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, third parties have filed intra court appeals in W.A. Nos. 895 to 898 of 2015 primarily for the purpose of expunging the remarks.

8. Thiru G. Rajagopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Central Government made the following submissions:

(i) The impugned orders were passed on the basis of the order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs denying security clearance. Notice in a case of this nature is an empty formality inasmuch as the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting would not be in a position to take a different decision in view of the denial of security clearance which is a mandatory requirement.

(ii) Since the Cable Operator has not complied with the essential conditions of registration, the order cancelling registration cannot be faulted.

(iii) The Cable Operator was given provisional permission vide order dated 30 September 2006 subject to security clearance. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was therefore perfectly correct in passing the impugned orders on account of the decision taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs denying security clearance.

(iv) M/s. Kal Cables Pvt. Ltd. is part of Sun TV Group. The Government have already initiated proceedings against the promoters under various provisions of law on account of certain illegal acts, which includes Money Laundering.

(v) The expression "security of the nation" would include even economic security