Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagmohan Singh Sarao vs Union Of India And Others on 3 December, 2008
Bench: T.S.Thakur, Jasbir Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8184 OF 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: December 03, 2008.
Parties Name
Jagmohan Singh Sarao
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
Union of India and others
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Rajinder Goyal,
Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. O.S.Batalvi, C.G.S.C.,
for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab,
for respondents No. 2 , 3, 9, 10 and 12.
Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana,
for respondents No. 4, 5 and 11
Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate,
wth Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for respondents No. 6 to 8.
Mr. D.S.Rajput, Advocate, for
respondent No. 13.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8184 OF 2008 -2-
T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE (oral)
JUDGMENT
This petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the provisions of Cable Television Networks (Regulations) Act, 1995, as amended by the Cable Television Networks (Regulations) Amendment Act, 2002, and the rules framed thereunder. It also prays for a direction to the respondents to stop the illegal casting of channels being run by Cable Operators and further seize the equipments being used by them for that purpose.
The respondents have filed their counter affidavits to the writ petition, in which it is inter alia stated that in case the petitioner has any grievance in relation to the alleged violation of any provision of the Act aforementioned or the Rules framed thereunder, he can approach the competent authority under the Act for taking appropriate action in the matter, in which event the competent authority can look into the grievance and take appropriate remedial and other action, warranted under the circumstances.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the view that it is unnecessary for us in a public interest petition to go into the merits of the allegations regarding the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act by unscrupulous Cable Operators. All that need be said by us is that in case the petitioner finds violation of any of the provisions of the Act aforementioned or the Rules framed thereunder, he shall be free to report such violation to the authorised officer as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act for taking action against the offender including CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8184 OF 2008 -3- action in terms of Section 11 by way of seizure of the equipment used for operating the cable television network contrary to Sections 3,4 A, 5, 6 or 8 of the said Act. It is not in dispute that the District Magistrate or the Sub Divisional Magistrates apart from the Commissioner of Police are all declared as authorised officers under Section 2(a). The Government may have issued a Notification in the official gazette authorising other officers also to take action in terms of the provisions of the Act but if the petitioner has any grievance as alleged in the writ petition, he can approach any one of those nominated under Section 2(a) or anyone notified as an authorised officer under the said provision for appropriate action. In case such a representation or complaint is made by the petitioner or for that matter by any other citizen, the authorised officer is expected to look into the same and take appropriate action against the offender under intimation to the complainant. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
( T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (JASBIR SINGH) December 03, 2008. JUDGE DKC