JUDGMENT

1. This Petition, under Section 14A (1) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as TRAI Act) read with Section 14 (a) (ii), has been filed, by GTPL Hathway Limited, Petitioner, through its authorised representative, against Shirdi Sai Cable Network, Respondent No. 1 and Sri Sai Communication Respondent No. 2, with a prayer for a decree, against Respondents for an injunction for swapping the Set Top Boxes (STBs) of Petitioner with Respondent No. 2, and a direction to Respondent No. 1 to return 232 STBs and in case of default, to pay the cost per STBs to Petitioner.

2. In brief, the contention, of the Petition is that the Petitioner, GTPL Hathway Limited, is a Company registered under Companies Act, 1956, and engaged as an MSO in the business of distribution of Television Channels to its various operators, PAN India, for which it is with a license under Cable Television Networks Act. Respondent No. 1, Sri Shiridi Sai Cable Network, is a Local Cable Operator, represented through its Proprietor namely, Mr P. Gangabhavani, having its office at Bonangi (V), Vizianagram District, Andhra Pradesh. Respondent No. 2, is a competing MSO having its Office at Siddipet, Telangana.

3. Respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement with Petitioner to provide its signals/ services to Respondent No. 1 for further retransmission to the subscribers through portal, under the terms, wherein, Petitioner issued approximately 655 STBs, alongwith accessories, to Respondent No. 1, for planting it at the subscribers end. Respondent No. 1 failed to maintain, the terms of agreement, which was in operation from 25.07.2020 to 31.03.2025. Rather, it started swapping of STBs since, month of December, 2020 to Respondent No. 2, without observing the due process of law and ultimately, failed to return the STBs, which are the exclusive property of Petition. Upon the violation of Interconnect Regulations as well as terms of the Agreement executed, in between, and thereby, swapping STBs/ migrating by Respondent No. 1 to 2.

4. The Petitioner issued a notice to Respondent No. 1, for making payment of the invoices raised for period upto 25.12.2020, but it was of no avail, except the assurance by the Respondent. Ultimately, 232 STBs were not returned by Respondent No. 1 to Petitioner, which resulted arising of cause of action, within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, and in stipulated period of limitation, this Petition, with above prayer, was got filed.

5. Inspite of sufficient service to Respondent No. 1, no appearance or reply was there. Matter was proceeded ex-parte, and the reply of Respondent No. 2, was taken into consideration, wherein, there was a specific denial of illegal swapping of STBs of Petitioner, by Respondent No. 1 through Respondent No. 2. Rather, being of no Privity of Contract, in between, Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, it was raised with no liability of Respondent No. 2, towards alleged swapping.

6. There was no issuance of any notice to Respondent No. 2 by Petitioner, nor was any migration by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2. A prayer was for dismissal of this Petition as against Respondent No. 2.

7. Replication cum rejoinder, by Petitioner, was got filed, with the reiteration of the contention of the Petition. The matter was referred to Court of Registrar for framing of issues and taking of evidences, if any.

8. Court of Registrar vide Order dated 18.04.2022, framed following issues.

(i) Whether the instant Petition is maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether the Respondent No. 1 has illegally migrated to Respondent No. 2 in violation of Interconnected Regulations and also in violation of the terms of the Agreement between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1?

(iii) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for recovery of STBs and viewing cards from the Respondents in good working conditions or in the alternative the cost of the STBs