Heard learned counsel for the respondent as well as the petitioner with regard to M.A No. 477 of 2016 filed by the respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC questioning the maintainability of the petition itself as not falling within the scope of Section 14 of the TRAI Act. Mr. Nittin Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent's main limb of the argument was that the respondent is a broadcaster whereas the petitioner provides telecom services and he tried to draw distinction between the two and submitted that on this basis the appropriate forum for filing this petition would be Civil Court as Section 14(a) of the TRAI Act is not attracted in this case. Mr. Azmat Amanullah, learned counsel for the petitioner places before chronology of the whole petition and the journey he has travelled since its filing on 21.1.2016 He submitted that after completion of the pleadings, the matter is already at the stage of evidence and the evidence affidavit has already been filed on 22.11.2016 and this application has been filed subsequent to that. He further submits that Section 14 of the TRAI Act says that the Tribunal has ample powers to adjudicate any dispute between the two or more service providers as per Section 14(a)(ii). Mr. Nittin Bhatia, however, is of the view that this cannot be construed to be a dispute between a Telecom Service provider and a Broadcaster. After hearing both the parties, before coming to the conclusion, we would like to point out that the TRAI Act, 1997 defines Telecommunication services as under: “2(k) - “telecommunication service” means service of any description (including electronic mail, voice mail, data services, audio tex services, video tex services, radio paging and cellular mobile telephone services) which is made available to users by means of any transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images and sounds or intelligence or any nature, by wire, radio, visual or other electro-magnetic means but shall not include radio, visual or other electromagnetic means but shall not include broadcasting services”. It is also worth mentioning that the broadcasting services were included within the definition of Telecommunication Services vide Government notification No. 39 dated 9.1.2004 In this view of the matter, we feel that in the present matter both the petitioner and the respondent must be considered as service providers within the ambit of Section 14(a)(ii); and hence this M.A is disallowed. The matter will proceed before the learned Adviser from the stage of evidence where it was.