started even in June 2007, when the Pe��oner sought from the Respondent authorisa�on for the purchase of decoders. Even assuming that the reference date is the date on which the fourth amendment, issued on 03.09.2007, came into force viz., 01.12.2007, it is an admi�ed fact that the request was pending on that date. On 18.2.2008, the Pe��oner had once again requested the Respondent for terms and condi�ons for both à la carte as well as bouquet. The pe��on having been filed on 10th April 2008, the period of 45 days had definitely expired. We therefore do not agree with the conten�on of the Respondent that the statutory period of 45 days was not over. Similarly, non-execu�on of agreement cannot be a ground for ques�oning the maintainability of the pe��on since the request of the Pe��oner was itself pending. In the absence of an understanding between the two par�es, the ques�on of execu�on of agreement does not arise. In his reply as well as in the arguments, the Respondent alleged that the Pe��oner has deliberately suppressed and concealed relevant correspondence between 04.04.2008 and 09.04.2008 and that the main pe��on is silent on this aspect. We find that the Pe��oner had filed addi�onal documents on 17th April 2008 including the e-mails communicated by the Respondent. Considering that the Pe��oner had filed these documents suo moto , and before it was pointed out by the Respondent, we do not consider this a material breach. On all counts, therefore, we reject the conten�on of the Respondent that the pe��on is not maintainable.
