Parties are still at variance about the compliance of the order dated 19 December, 2006. According to the petitioner, the order has not been complied with and petitioner is still not getting the signals. While according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, the petitioner is creating problems. According to the respondent signals were supplied to the petitioner on 21.12.2006 But the petitioner has cut the wires and he is trying to create a ground for action for non-compliance of the orders of this Tribunal against the respondent. In these circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has offered that a Local Commissioner could be appointed at his cost to report what is the position at site and who is at fault. Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Advocate present in the Court is appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the site from where the petitioner operates at Karnal and place where the petitioner receives signals to see whether the signals are being received by the petitioner and also to report about the quality of signals being provided to the petitioner as per the case of the respondent. The Local Commissioner may also carry out random check from few of the subscribers about the quality of signals. This be done within one week. Let the report be filed within one week. The fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs. 20000/- to be paid by the respondent besides other incidental expenses. The Local Commissioner will inform the parties about the time and day of his visit in pursuance of this order.
List on 12 February, 2007.
……………………J
(Arun Kumar)
Chairperson
………………
(Vinod Vaish)
Member
………………
(D.P Sehgal)
Member
Comments