Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Soumen Roy & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 January, 2019
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1
29.01.2019
[51]
Suman
Ct. 04
WP 77 (W) of 2019
Soumen Roy & Ors.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy
Mr. Pingal Bhattacharya
Mr. Subhankar Das
Mr. Neil Basu
...for petitioners
Mr. Ritwik Pattanayak
...for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3
Mr. Saha Roy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners petitioning together. He undertakes, Court fees of aggregate sum amounting to that which are payable by each petitioner moving separately will be paid in course of this week.
Petitioners are cable operators. They have challenged policy decision of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) per notification dated 3rd March, 2017 yet to be implemented by it. He submits, his clients have been disadvantaged by this 2 policy which upon implementation will spell their doom, force them out of their business and livelihood. He draws attention to paragraph 12 in the notification regarding interconnection agreement between distributor of television channels and local cable operators. He submits, entering into standard interconnection agreement as specified in Schedule VI is required thereby. Referring to Schedule VI he points out, the agreement will provide for billing of subscribers to be in name of Multi System Operators (MSO). MSO will receive payment of subscriptions paid by subscribers. Revenue share per clause 12.1 of the agreement shall be paid by MSO to local cable operator (LCO) on receipt of invoice from LCO. This, if implemented, his clients will be out of business. There is no possibility of MSO agreeing to any other term or condition apart from this heavily loaded in its favour, standard format agreement prescribed in Schedule VI. On top of that subscribers have option to have direct home viewing facility in which MSO is also participating in sharing revenue. Furthermore, revenue share ratio is also unviable for his clients considering it is the cable network and equipment of his clients which will reach contents to the subscribers. Share of revenue of his clients, is of lesser 3 percentage of amounts in bills to be raised in name of MSO and money collected by it.
Mr. Pattanayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of Union of India. On query from Court he does not have instructions regarding whether appeal was preferred against order dated 18th December, 2018 made by High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam Bench in WP (C) No.41210/2018 (A). (Ramachandran H and others vs. Union of India & Ors.) whereby implementation of this policy was pended till 18th February, 2019.
Submissions made on behalf of petitioners recorded above betray apprehension regarding them losing their livelihood. It is a matter of concern. Since Court does not have information regarding said order dated 18th December, 2018 (supra) having been stayed, Court is inclined to stay, till 18th February, 2019, implementation of the policy by said notification dated 3rd March, 2017. In this time the authority might consider apprehensions of petitioners and on returnable date, Court upon hearing Union of India and TRAI, will consider whether petitioners' apprehension is misconceived. 4
Petitioners will obtain and serve a copy of this order on TRAI and file affidavit of service on returnable date. This service must be effected by 4th February, 2019.
List under heading 'For Orders' on 13th February, 2019.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)