Dismissed

Shimla Satellite Cable Private Limited & Anr. v. the Union of India

Delhi HC18 Oct 2016W.P.(C)/6871/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Counsel clarified the petitioner challenged specific license conditions rather than the Digital Address System (DAS) implementation. The Court found the matter outside the scope of the transfer order. The registrar was directed to return the record to the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and the application was dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Record directed to be transmitted back to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Simla.

Shimla Satellite Cable Private Limited & Anr. Vs the… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~34

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 6871/2016

¶4

SHIMLA SATELLITE CABLE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR

¶5

..... Petitioner Through Mr. Navin Chawla and Mr. G S Oberoi, Advs. versus ..... Respondent Through Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Mohita, Adv. for UOI Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Adv. for TRAI

¶6

THE UNION OF INDIA

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

¶9

O R D E R % 18.10.2016

¶10

The Supreme Court by order dated 1^st April, 2016 in Transfer Petition (C) No. 430 - 444 of 2016 had observed that having regard to similar legal questions involved in all the writ petitions that are raised before different High Courts and with a view to avoid conflicting decisions by different High Courts, it would be just and proper to withdraw all those cases pending in different High Courts and transfer the same to Delhi High Court.

¶11

The Supreme Court in the said order further held that if any

¶12

case on the same legal question is filed before the High Court such case shall also be transferred to the Delhi High Court. The Registrar Generals of the respective High Courts were directed to transmit the records of the cases pending before the said High Courts to the Delhi High Court.

¶13

It is contended by counsel for the Union of India that the transfer petition had been filed since there was challenge in various High Courts to the systematic and phased implementation of DAS across the country.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition does not pertain to DAS-III or its implementation.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not challenging the implementation of DAS and has in fact implemented DAS but is aggrieved by two conditions imposed in the license. He submits that the said petition is also not covered by the order of the Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.430444/2016 and was also not part of the petitions in respect of which transfer petition had been filed.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for Union of India on instructions from Mr. Yogender Pal, Consultant, who is present in Court also confirms that the present petition does not deal with the implementation of D-III but, pertains to some conditions of the licence.

¶17

In view of the above, since the present petition is not covered by the order of the Supreme Court dated 1^st April, 2016 in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 430-444/2016, the Registry is directed to transmit

¶18

the record back to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Simla. CM No.38178/2016

¶19

Since the petition does not pertain to implementation of DAS, the applicant does not wish to press the present application. Dismissed as withdrawn.

¶20

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶21

OCTOBER 18, 2016 VLD

Shimla Satellite Cable Private Limited & Anr. v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shimla Satellite Cable Private Limited & Anr. v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baldev Raj Vs D.D.A.

Anand Kumar Singh Vs Union F India & Anr.

Anil Bareja Vs Union of India and Anr.

Paramjeet Saini Vs Union of India & Anr.

Dynamic Pvt. Iti Vs Director General of Training and Anr.

Bharati Sud & Anr. Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Ravneet Takhar Vs Commissioner of Income Tax IX and Ors.

Sunny Vs South Delhi M C D through D.C.M.C.D. Green Park and Anr.

Raj Priyanka Chaudhary Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences (Aiims) through the Director & Anr.

Priyanka Chaudhary & Ors. Vs National Board of Examinations

Ashish Gulati and Ors. Vs the Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Taru Dahiya Vs Union of India and Ors.

Den Manaoranjan Satellite Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Sai Big Star Welfare Association & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.