Madras High Court
Sky Vision Represented By Its ... vs The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Cum on 25 October, 2021
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
WP No.3402 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25-10-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.3402 of 2012
And
MP No.2 of 2012
SKY VISION Represented by its Proprietor,
D.Venkateshwara Raju,
No.4-8-030, S.B.Street,
Yanam, Pin – 533 464,
Union Territory of Puducherry. .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum
Authorised Officer under Cable Television
Network's (Regulation) Act, 1995,
Office of the Regional Administrator,
Yanam, Pin 533 464,
Union Territory of Puducherry.
2.The Chief Secretary,
Secretariat,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry – 605 001.
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP No.3402 of 2012
3.The Secretary,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Government of India,
6th Floor, A-Wing,
Sastri Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001. .. Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records
on the file of the first respondent in No.14827/SDMY/D3/2011-12 dated
10.01.2012 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Murugan
For Respondents-1and2 : Mr.J.Kumaran,
Additional Government Pleader
(Puducherry).
For Respondent-3 : Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy,
Central Government Standing
Counsel.
ORDER
The order impugned dated 10.01.2012, passed by the first respondent, reveals that the petitioner was directed to stop broadcasting the three channels and stop the broadcasting the scrolling news.
2. The petitioner was directed to explain in writing as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner for violating the provisions 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in WP No.3402 of 2012 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and Cable Television Network Rules, 1994.
3. The writ petition was filed in the year 2012. There is no interim order granted. It is not made clear whether the petitioner is continuing the broadcasting or not.
4. The counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent reveals that the petitioner is not entitled to broadcast and the relevant paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the counter-affidavit of the third respondent, are extracted as under:-
“7. It is also submitted that, Local Cable Operators (LCOs) and Multi System Operators (MSOs) can transmit locally produced programmes, however, the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 and Rules framed thereunder are presently silent about registration of local channel.
8. There is no provision for separate registration to run local cable channel. Section 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in WP No.3402 of 2012 2(g) of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 defines the word “Programme” as under:-
“(i) Exhibition of films, features, dramas, advertisements and serials;
(ii) Any audio or visual or audio – visual live performance or presentation, and the expression “programming service” shall be construed accordingly.”
9. Nevertheless, the content in the local channel must comply with the Programme Code and Advertisement Codes. The Authorised Officers under the Act viz., DM/SDM or Commissioner or Police of the area or any other Officer authorised by the State Government may initiate any action in case of violations of Programme and Advertisement Code as they have power under Section 11 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 to seize the equipment of the defaulters.”
5. Even otherwise also, the order impugned states that the 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in WP No.3402 of 2012 petitioner has to explain in writing regarding the violations committed under the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and Cable Television Network Rules, 1994. If any grievance exists as of now, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a detailed representation with reference to the order impugned, to the Competent Authorities.
6. With the abovesaid liberty, the writ petition is disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25-10-2021 Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order. Svn To
1.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Authorised Officer under Cable Television Network's (Regulation) Act, 1995, Office of the Regional Administrator, Yanam, Pin 533 464, Union Territory of Puducherry.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
5/6http://www.judis.nic.in WP No.3402 of 2012 Svn
2.The Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry – 605 001.
3.The Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, 6th Floor, A-Wing, Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.
WP 3402 of 2012 25-10-2021 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in