Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Manthan Broadband Services Private ... vs Union Of India & Ors.) on 20 June, 2016
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
57
20.06.2016
rrc
W. P. 10289 (W) of 2016
(Manthan Broadband Services Private Limited & Anr.
Vs. Union of India & Ors.)
Mr. S. K. Kapoor
Mr. Suddha Satwa Banerjee
Sk. Salim Rahaman
Mr. Anirban Dutta
Mr. Nazmul Aom Sarkar
......For the petitioners
Mr. Srijan Nayak
Ms. Rituparna Maitra
Mr. Raja Saha
Mr. U. Thakur
Mr. Sovan Bandyopadhyay
......For the respdt. nos. 3 & 4
This writ petition was presented before this Court on 9th
June, 2016. While entertaining it on that date ex-parte,
suitable interim protection was granted to the petitioners
bearing in mind the fact that the Telecom Disputes Settlement
Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi (hereafter the 'TDSAT') having
jurisdiction to decide the claim raised herein, was closed for
summer vacation on and from 6th June, 2016 and would
resume on 7th July, 2016.
It has been brought to the notice of this Bench by Mr.
Nayak, learned advocate appearing for the respondents 3 and
4 that by notice bearing no. 1.Judl./TDSAT/2002 dated 26th May, 2016, the Director of the TDSAT had made it known to all concerned that the TDSAT would be functional with effect from 2 1st June, 2016 with two Benches and that Bench Nos. 1 and. 2 would be taking up matters as mentioned therein. It is contended that the petitioners allowed the TDSAT to close for summer vacation and thereafter has presented this writ petition before this Bench with ulterior motive to obtain ex parte stay of the demand raised by them on 20th May, 2016. Per contra, Mr. Kapoor, learned senior advocate representing the petitioners submits that negotiations were on between the parties since raising of the impugned demand and once such negotiation failed, the petitioners had no other option but to approach this Bench in its writ jurisdiction, inter alia, for relief to thousands of viewers who would have been prejudiced by disconnection threatened by the respondents 3 and 4. That apart, Mr. Kapoor has reiterated his contentions as noticed in the order dated 9th June, 2016.
By such order an interim arrangement was made for payment of Rs.4 crore as a condition precedent for restraining the respondents 3 and 4 to disconnect till 23rd June, 2016 and the writ petition had been made returnable today. It is not in dispute that, in the meanwhile, the petitioners have approached the TDSAT and considering that the writ petition has been pending before this Bench, the TDSAT has 3 adjourned the hearing of the petition before it till 13th July, 2016.
It has transpired in course of hearing today that the petitioners had the occasion to move this Bench earlier in 2013 and had raised similar point that the TDSAT was not functional and that this Court ought to entertain its writ petition. Despite noting that the TDSAT was non-functional at that point of time, this Bench by its order dated 13th May, 2013 had declined interference on the ground that the dispute was essentially between two private parties and, therefore, writ remedy is not available on the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329. The writ petition, accordingly, stood dismissed as not maintainable. Although such order was carried in appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench whereupon an interim order had been made directing the petitioners to make payment, what stands out is that the petitioners again allowed time from 20th May, 2016 to lapse and did not approach the TDSAT when it was functional, and presented this writ petition when the TDSAT had closed for summer vacation. Having regard to what happened in the past, the petitioners' intention can well be perceived. This Bench records its utter displeasure at the 4 petitioners not having approached the TDSAT at the proper time.
Be that as it may, since the TDSAT has now been approached, all points raised in this writ petition must be raised for consideration by it.
Since Mr. Kapoor has prayed for extension of the restraining order that is due to lapse on 23rd June, 2016, this Bench called upon Mr. Nayak to quantify the dues that have accrued after the impugned demand was raised. According to him, Rs.2.25 crore each is due and payable for the months of May and June, 2016. This figure is disputed by Mr. Kapoor. According to him, the petitioners are entitled to a discount of Rs.50 lakh each month.
Upon consideration of the prayer, it is directed that such restraining order shall remain in force till 7th July, 2016, unconditionally. However, if by 7th July, 2016 the petitioner pays the respondents 3 and 4 Rs.2.25 crore, the restraining order shall continue till the TDSAT considers the petition before it next on merits. It is made abundantly clear that in the event the petitioners do not pay Rs.2.25 crore by 7th July, 2016, the restraining order passed earlier shall lapse. Needless to observe, payment and receipt of Rs.2.25 crore shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the 5 parties in the pending petition before the TDSAT and subject to further order that is passed by it.
The writ petition stands disposed of, without costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
( Dipankar Datta, J. )