Kerala High Court
Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd vs Indo-Asian News Channel Pvt. Ltd on 30 June, 2017
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh, V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/23RD BHADRA, 1939
WA.No. 1781 of 2017 IN WP(C).21563/2017
--------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 21563/2017 DATED 30-06-2017
AND ORDER DATED 24-07-2017 IN I.A. No.11293 OF 2017
...............
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN WRIT PETITION :
--------------------------------------------------------------
1. ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD
2 A, LEELA INFO PARK, TECHNO PARK,
KAZHAKOOTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN 695581, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. ASIANET DIGITAL CABLE PVT. LTD.
2 A, LEELA INFO PARK, TECHNO PARK,
KAZHAKOOTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN 695581, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT IN WRIT PETITION :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. INDO-ASIAN NEWS CHANNEL PVT. LTD
HMT COLONY PO, KALAMASSERY, PIN 683 503,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS,
SANCHAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 001.
R1 BY SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN
R2 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J. & Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A. No. 1781 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2017
JUDGMENT
Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.
We have heard the parties and with their consent we dispose of this writ appeal at this stage itself.
2. The appellants and the 1st respondent entered into an absolutely private commercial agreement being a channel carriage agreement. This agreement which was once renewed was valid up to 30.04.2017. Under this agreement, the appellants agreed to carry the signals of the 1st respondent on payment of carriage fee. The 1st respondent was required to pay substantial amount of money to the appellants. The 1st respondent being in substantial dues, the appellants instituted recovery proceedings before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (for short 'TDSAT') by filing Broadcasting Petition No.393 of 2016. While that recovery proceedings were pending and when no payment was forthcoming from the 1st respondent, with a further fact that the agreement stood expired, the appellants gave notice of disconnection of signals to the 1st respondent. This brought the 1st respondent before the TDSAT, WA No. 1781 of 2017 -:2:- who filed Broadcasting Petition No.89 of 2017. The 1st respondent sought from TDSAT an interim relief for restraining the appellants from disconnecting the signals pending disposal of the petition. TDSAT noticed that there was huge outstanding of about Rs.8 Crores which the 1st respondent was required to pay to the appellants. Accordingly, by order dated 30.05.2017, the Tribunal ordered that on payment of Rs.3 Crores in two installments as noted therein and also on executing a RIO agreement as per Interconnection Regulations, 2012, the facilities provided to 2nd respondent would not be discontinued. This was on the basis of the communication dated 15.02.2017 from the 1st respondent to the appellants admitting an undertaking to pay Rs.3 Crores on or before 25.03.2017, which fact is not disputed.
3. In spite of having obtained a stay of disconnection notice on payment of money as noted above, the 1st respondent filed the present writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 21563 of 2017, before this Court and this Court entertained the same and passed an interim order granting indulgence by reducing Rs.3 Crores to Rs.1 Crore and granting further time, probably taking into WA No. 1781 of 2017 -:3:- account that the disconnection would render a large number of employees of the 1st respondent jobless. Even this order could not be complied with by the writ petitioner/1st respondent and they sought modification so as to get the time extended further. The learned single Judge extended the time further. The appellants have appealed against the two interim orders.
4. On their behalf it is submitted that the writ petition itself was not maintainable, it being a matter within purely private law domain. Secondly, it was submitted that the 1st respondent cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, they cannot pray for stay of disconnection notice and not obey the other part of the order which requires payment of a portion of the outstanding amount. We have heard the parties.
5. The admission in letter dated 15.02.2017 as written by the 1st respondent to the appellants with regard to the commitment to pay Rs.3 Crores on or before 25.03.2017 is not denied. If that be so, then this Court cannot be used as a tool to overcome the contractual liabilities and that too in a matter purely in the private law domain. It is on the basis of the above aspect that the TDSAT had granted indulgence in extending the WA No. 1781 of 2017 -:4:- time from 25.03.2017 to pay Rs.3 Crores and granting installments. It directed payment of Rs.2 Crores by 30.06.2017 and further Rs.1 Crore by 15.07.2017. It is on that condition that the notice of disconnection was stayed and directions to enter into a 'RIO' agreement was passed. Surely the 1st respondent cannot be permitted to accept that part of the order and reject the other. Stay was subject to payment. If they did not intend to pay, then the stay would have to be vacated. Thus, on this point also we find that the indulgence shown by the learned single Judge was not in accordance with law. We are therefore, constrained to hold that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and ought to have been dismissed at the threshold itself. We hereby vacate the order of learned single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. This appeal is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice.
Sd/-
Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge.
ttb/14/09