Madhya Pradesh High Court
Goswami Cable Network A Properietor ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP 13545/2019
Goswami Cable Network, a proprietor firm through its proprietor Shri
Manoj Goswami vs. State of MP and Others
Gwalior, Dated :30/07/2019
Shri Devendra Chaubey, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri SN Seth, Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 5/
State.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
''7(a) That, Hon'ble High Court may issued direction to respondent no.4 and 5 to stop the illegal cable network and obey the order of local administration.
(b). That the direction may be issued to respondent no.4 and 5 to initiate the criminal action against the unauthorized cable operator.
(c) And any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deemed fit in the circumstances of the case including costs may be granted.'' It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 13/07/2002 as well as by order dated 23/12/2015, the petitioner has been granted licence to operate Cable Network. However, the respondent No.6 is illegally operating the cable business in the locality without getting himself registered under the law, therefore, the SDO, Datia by order dated 20/06/2019 had directed the respondent No.2 to immediately close down the 2 cable business of respondent No.6. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the SDO, Datia by letter dated 11/06/2019 had requested the CSP, Kotwali, Datia to ensure that nobody should run the cable business contrary to the instructions issued from time to time, but still the police has not taken any action in the matter.
This Court by order dated 16/07/2019 had directed the petitioner to explain as to why inherent powers available under Section 32 of MPLRC with the Revenue Authorities cannot be invoked to ameliorate the grievances.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that once the SDO, Datia has already requested the CSP, Kotwali, Datia to ensure that nobody should be permitted to run the cable business unauthorizedly, then it is clear that the SDO, Datia has already exercised his inherent powers under Section 32 of MPLRC.Therefore, this writ petition for enforcement of letter issued by SDO, Datia is maintainable.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The crux of the matter is that, according to the petitioner, he is running a cable business after obtaining registration under the Excise Act, whereas respondent No.6 is running his business without obtaining registration under the relevant statutory provisions.
The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 provides for the remedy sought by the petitioner. Section 3 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 provides for registration. Section 4A of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 provides for transmission 3 of programmes through digital addressable systems. Section 16 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 provides for punishment for contravention of provision of this Act.
Thus, from the plain reading of the provisions of Section 4A as well as Section 16 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, it is clear that the act complained against the respondent No.6 may be punishable under Section 16 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. Section 16(2) of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 provides that the contravention of Section 4A shall be a cognizable offence under this Section.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already approached the Superintendent of Police, Datia by making a representation Annexure P8, dated 30th April, 2018, but no action has been taken so far.
However, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had ever approached the SHO of concerning Police Station. Even otherwise, it is well-established principle of law that in case, if the police does not take an action in a cognizable offence, then the only remedy available to the aggrieved person is to file a criminal complaint under Section 200 of CrPC.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid liberty.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge MKB Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2019.07.31 17:03:01 +05'30'