Disposed

Cazcam Satellite Communications v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Dec 2018WP(C)/21577/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that Regulation 17 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Inter Connection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 mandates a three-week notice before disconnecting signals. The court ruled that even if the dispute is contractual, the service provider must follow statutory procedures to disconnect signals.

What did the court decide?

The sixth respondent is restrained from disconnecting television signals to the petitioner without issuing a three-week notice and complying with Regulation 17.

Cazcam Satellite Communications Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No.21577 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

CAZCAM SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS, KARUNYA BUILDINGS, VAIPPARADY, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN676121, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SURESH KUMAR S.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (KANNAMPUZHA)

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, I & PR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN676505.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COCHIN682030.

¶13

4 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING, ROOM NO.560, A-WING, SHASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110002.

¶14

5 TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, MAHANAGAR, DOOR SANCHAR BHAVAN, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI-110002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

6 DEN NET WORKS LIMITED, KOSHY ARCADE, OPPOSITE OBRON MALL, ANCHUMANA BYEPASS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682024, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL HEAD.

¶16

WP(C).No.21577 of 2018 2

¶17

BY ADVS. SMT.KRISHNA S., CGC

¶18

SRI.P.JAYABAL MENON SRI.JAISON ANTONY BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.G.RANJITHA

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner is a Local Cable Television Operator. They operate within the limits of Manjeri Municipality. The sixth respondent is the service provider. The issue is in regard to the disconnection of signals of television channels to the petitioner.

¶22

2.The matter is covered by the Regulation 17 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Inter Connection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017. Regulation 17 provides as follows:

¶23

“17. Disconnection of signals of television channels :- No service provider shall disconnect signals of television channels without giving at least three weeks' notice to the other service provider, clearly specifying the reasons for the proposed disconnection.

¶24

WP(C).No.21577 of 2018 3

¶25

Provided that the period of three weeks' notice shall start from the date of receiving the notice by other service provider.

¶26

Provided further that the distributor of television channels shall, fifteen days prior to the date of disconnection, inform the subscribers through scrolls on the channels proposed to be disconnected, the date of disconnection of signals of such television channels.

¶27

Provided also that no service shall display notice for disconnection of signals television channels in form of static images overlaid on the television screen, obstructing normal viewing of the subscribers.”

¶28

The stand of the sixth respondent is that the writ petition is not maintainable in as much as that it is purely a contractual dispute between the petitioner and the sixth respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a habitual defaulter and therefore, the sixth respondent was constrained to drop signals.

¶29

Regulation 17 as above was issued to protect larger public interest. It may be true that the relation between the petitioner and the sixth respondent is contractual. However, when a statute stipulates that disconnection of signals

¶30

WP(C).No.21577 of 2018 4

¶31

can be only in a particular manner, the service provider is bound to follow such statutory prescriptions. To the extent of discharging the statutory duties as above, the sixth respondent is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I am of the view that the objection in regard to the amenability to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has to be repelled.

¶32

In regard to the disconnection, even if the petitioner is a defaulter, the service provider has to give three weeks time notice specifying the reasons for disconnection. Therefore, it is not possible to disconnect the signals of the petitioner's channels without recourse to the procedure as referrable under Regulation 17. Therefore, I am of the view that the sixth respondent shall not disconnect the signal of television channels to the petitioner without recourse to Regulation 17 as above.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶36

WP(C).No.21577 of 2018 5

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POSTAL REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MANJERI HEAD POST OFFICE.
EXHIBIT P2	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21901/2016.
EXHIBIT P3	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HOB'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.6681/2018.
EXHIBIT P4	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF INVOICE ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF EMAIL SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF INVOICE ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF EMAIL SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF INVOICE ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF EMAIL SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF EMAIL SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF EMAIL SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF EMAIL SHOWING NEFT PAYMENT OF RS.18,636/- COVERED BY EXT P8 INVOICE.
EXHIBIT P13	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.9052/2016.
EXHIBIT P14	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶40

WP(C).No.21577 of 2018 6

¶41

EXHIBIT P15 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY VAYAPPARADI RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION TO THE PETITIONER.

¶42

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL.

¶43

Cazcam Satellite Communications v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cazcam Satellite Communications v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salabha P.S. Vs Usha Rani

O.P.Saradamma Vs the Assistant Educational Officer

Linimol Thomas Vs Fr.Sijan Paul

Dinin E S Das Vs the State of Kerala

Director of Public Instructions Vs National Council for Teachers

K.V.M. College of Nursing Vs State of Kerala