Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(TDSAT) 24
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MR. KULDIP SINGH, MEMBER, AFTAB ALAM, CHAIRPERSON
Wiretel Digital Networks Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Petition No. 84(C) of 2013 | Petition No. 85(C) of 2013 | Petition No. 86(C) of 2013 | Petition No. 87(C) of 2013 | Petition No. 88(C) of 2013 | Petition No. 89(C) of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. J.K. Mehta, Mr. Arjun Natarajan
For the Respondents: Mr. Tejveer Singh Bhatia, Mr. U. Thakur, Mr. Yatin Grover, Mr. A. Amanullah, Mr. A.C. Mishra, Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Mr. Nittin Bhatia, Mr. K. Vijay Kumar, Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Mr. H.N. Rath, Mr. N. Ganpathy
Multi System Operators may operate in non-DAS areas if legally permitted, countering respondent claims regarding DAS limitations.
Headnote:The relevant legislation considered includes the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, particularly regarding permissions for Multi System Operators. The petitioner, Wiretel Digital Networks Pvt. Ltd., sought to obtain a signal interconnect agreement from various broadcasters, establishing the necessity of a valid registration for operation in non-DAS areas. The court's findings confirmed that the petitioner had valid permissions to operate and thus should receive the signals. The court noted the respondents' contention regarding the limitations based on DAS notifications but found it unfounded. It also addressed the claim of technical deficiencies raised by the respondents against the petitioner, concluding that such claims were unsubstantiated. The petitions were allowed without costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's eligibility for interconnection in non-das areas. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. validity of permission against das notifications. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. final order to allow petitions without costs. (Para 10) |
ORDER
Kuldip Singh:
The main issues that arise for consideration in these petitions are whether the petitioner can voluntarily provide services through DAS (Digital Addressable System) mode in areas which are not yet notified for providing DAS service; if so, whether the Digital Addressable System installed by the petitioner has any shortcomings and whether it is entitled to receive the signals from the respondents?
2. The petitioner is a Multi System Operator (MSO) who has been granted permission under Rule 11E of The Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India on 29.6.2012 for operating in areas notified under Section 4A of The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 . The respondents are broadcasters/agents acting on behalf of the broadcasters. The petitioner has been trying to enter into interconnect agreement and obtain signals of the respondents since November 2012 and not being successful in its efforts, the present petition has been filed on 15.02.2013.
3. Since the facts and the law involved are similar in all the petitions in the batch, the same are being disposed of by this common order. The facts are taken from Petition No. 84 (C) of 2013 in which ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. is the respondent.
4. The petitioner vide letter dated 28.11.2012 expressed its desire to obtain signals of the respondent (ESPN Software in Petition No. 84 (C) of 2013) [Similar request was also made to the other respondents]. Some correspondence was exchanged between the parties with regard to the time line for implementation of DAS in Mangalagiri town (Guntur District) where the head-end of the petitioner is located and where the channels of the respondents were to be provided. Subsequently, when the petitioner approached the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide order dated 18.02.2013 directed the petitioner to meet the respondents within two weeks to resolve the disputes and differences among themselves clarifying that the meeting will be held without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. During the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal, some efforts were made in each of these cases to arrive at a negotiated settlement and in some cases (Petition No. 84 (C), 85 (C) and 86 (C) of 2013) technical audits were also held at the instance of the respective respondents.
5. The main contention of the respondents is that, as per the notification dated 11.11.2011 issued by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, only two cities of Andhra Pradesh namely Hyderabad and Vishakhapatnam have been notified where the DAS regime is to be implemented as on date. All the other areas of Andhra Pradesh fall under Phase III and Phase IV of the DAS regime where the DAS Regulations are yet to be enforced and that the petitioner in this case.
Mangalagiri town of Guntur District, where the head-end of the petitioner is located and where the signals of the respondents are sought, is at present not under DAS regime.
6. Mr. N. Ganpathy, learned counsel appearing for ESPN Software, and Mr. Tejveer Singh Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for Media Pro Enterprises, submitted that the permission granted by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to the petitioner is for operating as a Multi System Operator in the Digital Addressable System (DAS) in the notified cities/towns/areas of Andhra Pradesh occurring against Phase II, Phase III and Phase IV as per the notification of the Government of India dated 11.11.2011. As per them the permission granted to the petitioner is not valid in the areas which have not yet come under the DAS regime. They further submitted that the petitioner has sought signals for whole of Andhra Pradesh and since on date excepting two cities,
