1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 24 of 2016
1. Gentle Entertainment Private Limited 312, 314, & 317, Spark Plaza, Telibandha, Raipur Acting In The Premises Through Its Director Shri Santosh Pandey, Son Of Shri R. M. Pandey, Aged About 40 Years, R/o A 35, Radha Swami Nagar, Raipur. (Chhattisgarh)
2. Santosh Pandey, S/o Shri R. M. Pandey, Aged About 40 Years R/o A 35, Radha Swami Nagar, Raipur . Civil & Revenue District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioner Versus
1. Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Information And Broadcasting , Room No.116, 'A' Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent
For Petitioners Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/UOI Shri N.K. Vyas, Asstt. Solicitor General For Respondent/State Shri Adiraj Surana, Dy. Govt. Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board
11/01/2016
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2
1. Though there is challenge to the gazette notification dated 11-9-2014 issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 4A of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (henceforth 'the Act, 1995'), learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the writ petition may be disposed of by giving at least three months time to the petitioners for installation of Set-Top Boxes (henceforth 'STB') in respect of every connection provided by the petitioner Cable Operator to its consumers.
2. It appears by notification dated 11-11-2011 the Central Government had decided to fix deadline up to 30-9-2014 for digitalisation of Phase III cities which covers Raipur where the petitioners are Multi System Operator (henceforth 'MSO'). Under the Act, 1995 it has been made obligatory for Cable Operators to transmit or re-transmit programmes of any channel in any encrypted form through a Digital Addressable System (henceforth 'DAS'). The DAS was to be made effective in Phase III cities and the deadline for providing STB was 30-9-2014, however, by subsequent notification dated 11-9-2014 the deadline was extended till 31-12-2015.
3. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would draw attention of the Court to the minutes of the 13th Task Force
3
Meeting on Implementation of Digital Addressable System in Cable TV Network in Phase III & IV held at New Delhi on 30-12-2015. In the said meeting chaired by the Secretary (I&B), the MSOs have highlighted the issue of shortage of STBs and their delivery and pending interconnect agreements with broadcasters. Shri Sharma would further refer to the additional documents filed today wherein manufacturers/suppliers of STBs have demonstrated their inability to supply STBs due to global shortage of chipset and tuners. Shri Sharma would next submit that if the STBs are not available in the market, the petitioners cannot be blamed and at the same time the right of the viewers in receiving uninterrupted viewing content would be violated. Learned counsel would submit that for the benefit of the viewers this Court may grant three months time to the petitioners for installing STBs. Shri Sharma would lastly submit that interim reliefs in these terms have already been allowed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Multi System Operators Welfare Association v. Union of India & Another1and the High Court of Sikkim in All Sikkim Cable Operators Association v. Union of India and Others2.
4
4. Per contra, Shri Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India and Shri Surana, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer on submission that the petitioners were granted sufficient time for installation of DAS/STBs inasmuch as the first notification was issued on 11-11-2011. They would submit that the High Court of Bombay has refused to grant any interim relief to the Cable operators in Nashik Zilla Cable Operator Association v. State Of Maharashtra of Maharashtra3.
5. In the present case, the petitioners are not resisting the introduction of DAS & STBs. The only prayer made is for extension of time on the ground that the STBs are not available in the market because the manufacturers/suppliers are not in a position to provide STBs for non-availability of components in the international market. It appears the petitioners are willing to comply with the directions issued by the Central Government in its letter and spirit, however, their only prayer is for giving some breathing period that too on account of non-availability of STBs.
6. Having considered the entire facts situation of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioners are allowed two months time from 31st December, 2015 for providing
5
DAS/STBs and the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioners during this period. It is made clear that the above extended period of two months shall not be extended further. After the expiry of period of two months, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Sd/-
Judge
Prashant Kumar Mishra
Gowri