Kerala High Court
M/S.Kollam Cables Private Limited vs The Union Of India on 21 September, 2015
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/22ND POUSHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 6039 of 2016 (D)
------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S) :
-------------------------
M/S.KOLLAM CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED,
N.J.ARCADE, NEAR FOREST OFFICE, CHINNAKKADA,
KOLLAM-691 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND
DIRECTOR, BANIBALAKRISHNAN.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR
SMT.P.LISSY JOSE.
RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------
1. THE UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION
& BROADCASTING, SASTRIBHAVAN, RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. THE SECRETARYTO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING,
SASTRIBHAVAN, RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001.
3. THE TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (TRAI),
MAHANAGAR, DOOR SANCHAR BHAVAN, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002.
4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS, MANAKBHAVAN, 9 BAHADUR
SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002.
5. M/S.GOSPELL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,
NO.C-503, FILIX COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, III FLOOR, LBS MARG,
BHANDUP (WEST), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400 078.
R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
BY ADV. SRI.M.C.MONY, CGC
R4 BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY
R5 BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.DIAS
SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN
SMT.B.BINDU
SMT.GLORY THARAKAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 12-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 6039 of 2016 (D)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL MSO REGISTRATION
DATED 21-09-2015.
P2 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10-11-2015 OF THE PETITIONER TO
THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
P3 : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 20-11-2015 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3.
P4 : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 04-02-2016 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TOJUDGE.
Msd.
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.6039 of 2016
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2017
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a registered Cable TV operator and a multi system operator. This writ petition is filed allegedly aggrieved by the failure of the authorities to take action to prevent the 5th respondent and other manufacturers of set top boxes and Conditional Access System (CAS) software from controlling the network of the MSO by not permitting free operation of the software. Being aggrieved, petitioner has submitted Exts.P3 and P4 before respondents 1 to 3, which are pending consideration. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to take on board Exts.P3 and P4, and consider the same in accordance with law.
2. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. Among other contentions, it is also stated that the 5th respondent who is legally obliged to carry out any service complaints of the C.A.S Software, is W.P.(C) No.6039 of 2016 2 ready and willing to provide the user names and passwords of the EMM and ECM, as instructed by the Vendor, on condition that the petitioner gives an unconditional undertaking that they would not seek any further service from the Vendor or the 5th respondent for the CAS Software as well as all related hardware and software operating through the said CAS, and further that the petitioner shall not infringe the Vendor's or the 5th respondent's patent rights over the CAS Software and shall not hold them responsible for violation of any Law or Regulations that are in force. It is also contended, Sec.14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, clearly provides a mechanism for resolution of disputes in the nature raised by the petitioner in Exts.P3 and P4. These are the background facts available before me to consider the writ petition.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, only on conducting an enquiry, the issue raised by the petitioner can be sorted out and the issue is not covered under Sec.14 of the Act, 1997. In my considered opinion, that is a subject matter to be considered by the 2nd respondent while considering Exts.P3 and P4.
W.P.(C) No.6039 of 2016 3
4. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to take on board Exts.P3 and P4 and attain a logical conclusion within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 5th respondent or any other interested or affected persons.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE St/-
12.01.2017