Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) While so, some of the Cable Operators have raised an issue that 2nd and 3rd respondents herein have been airing certain pay channels into the basic tier, i.e. free to air signals transmitted without the help of Set Top Boxes in contravention of Section 4(A) of the said Act. Because of such illegal transmission of Pay Channel signals without Set Top Boxes as Free-to-Air Channels, it is difficult for the Operators of Chennai Metropolitan to carry out their Trade in strict adherence to the various provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder besides sustaining loss. Every Cable Operator is to receive signals from the Multi System Operator(MSO) and supply the same to the houses in their respective areas through Closed Path and that the subscriber would get the signals of channels to their choice.
(iv) There are two kinds of Television Signals commonly known as Pay Channels and Free-To-Air Channels. The Chennai Metropolitan Area is notified under Section 4-A of the said Act. The above said two system of transmission of Television Signals are permissible. As a matter of fact, only one Multi System Operator for the whole of Chennai has been granted with licence and act as sole MSO. The 3rd respondent is legally obligated to transmit Television signals without overlapping and in conformity with the provisions of the Act. The Cable Operators having been duly registered with the authority, they are empowered to retransmit the Television signals through Cable without any decoding to the customer. It is further submitted that the Cable Operators are authorized to collect the prescribed amount from their respective consumers to whom the Set Top Boxs are provided for viewing the Pay Channels, at the additional rates to that of Free-To-Air Channel-basic tier.

3a. The statements recorded by the Inspector from the above two persons during the course of enquiry did not state anything that could be conclusive of violations of transmission of pay channels without set top boxes. Moreover, enquiry of two other witnesses in the respective areas also did not categorically establish the viewing of pay channels as mentioned in the complaint. Though CDs were not enclosed in the complaint as claimed by the complainant, the representative of the complainant handed over a CD to the Inspector in person on 11.04.2011 and the complainant also sent CDs through courier on 19.04.2011. The enquiry officer, Inspector of Police, has reported that the contents of the CDs could not linked definitely to a specific place and period. Hence, he has reported that he could not conclude telecasting of pay channels without set top boxes in the areas as mentioned in the complaint falling within the CAS (Conditional Access System) notified Chennai Metropolitan Area and the provisions of Section 4(A) and 16 of the Act 1995 could not be invoked.

18. Adverting to merits, it it is the case of the petitioner that he has submitted a representation dated 29.03.2010 to the first respondent for taking action against respondents 2 and 3 for their alleged violation of the Act and the Rules. In this regard, the stand of the first respondent is that a photo copy of the said representation was received in the office only on 15.12.2010 and the same was subjected to enquiry by the Inspector of Police, Team X, Copyright Wing of the Central Crime Branch. During the enquiry, the Inspector of Police recorded the statements of two individuals living in Kattupakkam and Adambakkam areas, which did not state anything that could be conclusive of violations of transmission of pay channels without set top boxes. Moreover, enquiry of two other witnesses in the respective areas also did not categorically establish the viewing of pay channels as mentioned in the complaint. Though CDs were not enclosed to the complaint as claimed by the petitioner, the representative of the petitioner handed over a CD to the Inspector in person on 11.04.2011 and the petitioner also sent CDs through courier on 19.04.2011. On examination of the said CDs, the enquiry officer, namely, Inspector of Police, has reported that the contents of the CDs could not be linked definitely to a specific place and period. Hence, he has reported that he could not conclude telecasting of pay channels without set top boxes in the areas as mentioned in the complaint falling within the CAS (Conditional Access System) notified Chennai Metropolitan Area and that the provisions of Section 4(A) and 16 of the Act could not be invoked. Pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner, the Police authorities also enquired the Managers of second and third respondents companies and found that the allegations made in the complaint are shadowy. Hence, this Writ Petition is devoid of merit as well. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no avail to the case of the petitioner, as the facts and circumstances therein are different from the one in hand.