The petitioner sought a writ mandamus to suspend a respondent operating a cable TV network beyond its territorial jurisdiction in violation of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Ordinance, 1984.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No. 13969 of 2011 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 13969 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 07.04.2014
Brij Bala Goyal
... Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmail Singh Dhull, Advocate for respondent No.10 ********
RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)
This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India is for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for issuance of direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to immediately suspend the operation and take appropriate action against respondent No. 4 who is providing TV signal analog and digital mode beyond its territorial jurisdiction in Ambala Cantt in violation of clause (h) of Section 2 “registering authority” notified under clause (h) of Section 2 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Ordinance, 1984.
On notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 10 wherein it has been admitted that the registration of cable TV, network is granted by the Postal Department. Cable registeration No. 493 was initially granted to respondent No. 4 on 11.01.2008 which has
Arora Gaurav 2014.05.05 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
CWP No. 13969 of 2011 (O&M)
been last renewed for a further period of 12 months w.e.f 11.01.2011 to
10.01.2012 for running cable T.V. Networks at the same address in the entire area under the jurisdiction of Head Post Office Ludhiana. Registeration certification No. 493 was initially granted to respondent No. 4 on 11.01.2008 against his application dated 31.10.2007 on payment of requisite fee of Rs.500/- deposited in HPO Ludhiana vide UCR receipt No. A6127 dated 11.01.2008 and this licence has been last renewed for a further period of 12 months w.e.f 11.01.2011 to 10.01.2012 and 08.04.2011. This last renewal was amended and reissued fresh on 26.09.2011 after obtaining fresh cable renewal regiseration forms with entry in column No. 5 regarding “Area in which cable TV network is working/proposed to be set up” and revised application dated 16.09.2011 for renewal of registration certificate No. 493 for the period 11.01.2011 to 10.01.2012 for running cable T.V network at the same address in the entire area under the jurisdiction of Head Post Office, Ludhiana.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 10 on instructions has
further informed the Court that it has been further renewed.
In view of the above instructions, the petition is dismissed.
( RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
07.04.2014 G Arora
Arora Gaurav 2014.05.05 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned lower court was justified in not suspending the operation of the respondent who was providing TV signals beyond its territorial jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Brij Bala Goyal
Union of India
Respondent No. 4
Respondent No. 10
RITU BAHRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
