At, Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA
For Appellant: Mr.T. S. Bhatia, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr.Amit Chadha, Senior Advocate with Gaurav Juneja & Mr. Praveen Pahuja, Advocates.
The petitioner herein is a Multi Service operator.
It has a control room for transmission of signals of the channels of various broadcasters for which it has obtained a registration certificate from the Post Master, Yamuna Nagar for operating from 1388/17, HUDA, JAG.
It, in terms of Regulation 3.2 (Telecommunication Broadcasting and Cable Services ) Interconnection Regulations 2004 as amended from time to time, made a request for obtaining supply of signals of various channels of several broadcasters including Zee Television Ltd. and MSM Discovery.
The petitioner also made a similar request to the respondent herein by reason of a letter dated 21.5.2009. Various correspondences passed between the parties.
The respondent sought for various informations from the petitioner, inter alia, by its letters dated 3.6.2009, 10.4.2010 etc. The petitioner is an income tax payee. It along with the petition has furnished its income tax returns for two financial years.
The petitioner also furnished a subscribers? list to the respondent herein for 330 subscribers. They are located at Sector 17, HUDA, Gurunank Pura, Professor Colony, Power Grid Section, Durga Colony.
The respondent in its reply, inter alia, contended:-
1. The petitioner has not furnished all the relevant details and has no intention to carry out cable business, being, not commercially viable as it is a new entrant and cannot pay the subscription fees for 330 subscribers only.
2. The respondent has in fact considered the petitioner?s request but despite repeated reminders he did not furnish the requisite details.
The petitioner in support of its case has examined its sole proprietor Mr. Rakesh Kkumar; whereas the respondent examined Mr. Subodh Thapliyal.
It is not in dispute that during pendency of this petition the petitioner entered into a settlement with M/s Zee Turner Ltd.
A copy of the memorandum of agreement has been supplied to the learned counsel for the respondent.
MSM Discovery and other broadcasters have also been directed to supply all its signals to the petitioner.
Indisputably, for certain areas in Yamuna Nagar, the petitioner has entered into agreements with the aforementioned broadcasters on a subscriber base of 800.
The areas of operation, and their respective subscriber base, in the other case, however, appear to be :
1. Section 17, HUDA 225
2. Gurunanak Pura 90
3. Professor Colony 115
4. Durga Colony 2
5. Model Town 160
6. Model Colony 110
7. Paper Mill Colony 45
8. Chopra Garden 55
Mr. Chadha, however, has pointed out that in fact the petitioner has its head end at Shop No.22 of Shopping Center No.1, Sector 17, HUDA, Jagadhari.
There cannot be any doubt or dispute that the petitioner will have to obtain, if not already done, a postal registration certificate for its head end, if it has been carrying on its operation from the said Shop No.22.
Mr. Chadha submits that the petitioner may not be able to pay the subscription fees.
I am, however, of the opinion that if the petitioner is directed to deposit rolling advance of subscription fees for two months, the interest of justice would be subserved.
There cannot furthermore be any doubt or dispute that as and when any other subscriber and/or link operator joins the petitioner?s network, the same is required to be intimated to the respondent.
Monthly SLRs in terms of Regulation 12 is also required to be filed. The subscriber base of the petitioner would be calculated in respect of its areas of operation as referred to herein before with the maximum number of subscribers in each of the said areas which comes to about 900.
The respondent is directed to enter into subscription agreement on the aforementioned subscriber base. The petitioner s
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
hall also furnish verifiable addresses of its subscribers/LCOs, both in presenti as also in futuro. On the petitioner?s compliance of the aforementioned directions, the respondent shall enter into an agreement with the petitioner within one week thereafter. This petition is allowed with the aforementioned observations and directions. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.