Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Soumen Roy & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 January, 2019
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1
30.01.2019
[unlisted]
Suman
Ct. 04
WP 77 (W) of 2019
With
CAN 1002 of 2019
Soumen Roy & Ors.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy
Mr. Indranath Mitra
Mr. Pingal Bhattacharya
Mr. Subhankar Das
Mr. Neil Basu
...for petitioners
Mr. Kausik Chanda,
ld. Sr. Adv. Addl. Solicitor General
Mr. Tarun Jyoti Tewari
...for applicants / TRAI
Mr. Subir Sanyal
Mr. Ritwik Pattanayak
...for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3
Mr. Indranil Nandi Mr. Sayak Konar ...for respondent no.6 Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya ...for respondent no.9 Re. CAN 1002 of 2019 2 CAN 1002 of 2019 has been moved on urgent basis upon leave granted. Applicant is Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Mr. Chanda, learned senior advocate, Additional Solicitor General demonstrates successfully that his client was not served with sufficient notice on this writ petition moved yesterday and order obtained ex parte against his client. Respondent nos. 6 and 9 are represented and learned advocates also complain their clients have not been served. Service is effected in Court at this time. Other respondents go unrepresented and there is no proof of service on them.
Mr. Chanda relies on judgment dated 14th January, 2019 in WP (C) 6681 of 2018 (Cable Operators Welfare Association vs. Union of India & Ors.) delivered by a learned Single Judge of High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam Bench. He relies on paragraph 12 of the judgment. He submits, option for negotiation between Multi System Operators (MSO) and Local Cable Operators (LCO) is provided by impugned notification. On failure to achieve a profit sharing ratio by negotiation, his client has required MSO(s) and LCO(s) to have Schedule VI prescribed agreement between them which determines share ratio 55:45. 3
Court understands this ratio to be MSO cannot ask for more than 55 while LCO will not get less than 45, is the object behind this Schedule agreement. Whether or not Court will interfere in sustaining interim order passed yesterday will turn on answer to the question as to whether option for negotiation given by impugned notification is illusory?
List tomorrow at 10.30 A. M. (Arindam Sinha, J.)