Associated Broadcasting Company Private Limited v. Sreedevi Digital Systems Private Limited & Ors.

1. This hearing is being conducted through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 36239/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 999/2024 CM APPL. 36255/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 1000/2024 CM APPL. 36260/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 1001/2024 CM APPL. 36263/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 1003/2024 CM APPL. 36264/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 1004/2024 CM APPL. 36281/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 1005/2024 CM APPL. 36282/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 1006/2024 CM APPL. 36283/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 1007/2024 CM APPL. 36284/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 1008/2024 CM APPL. 36237/2024 (Ex.) in CONT.CAS(C) 998/2024

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. The applications stand disposed of. CONT.CAS(C) 999/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 1000/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 1001/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 1003/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 1004/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 1005/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 1006/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 1007/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 1008/2024 CONT.CAS(C) 998/2024

4. The above-noted petitions have been instituted by the petitioner seeking initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India against the respondents for alleged wilful breach and disobedience of the directions passed by this Court dated 24.06.2024. The above-noted cases raise common questions of law, and therefore are being disposed of vide this common order.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 3, learned counsel for respondent No.2, learned Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) for respondent No.4/UOI, as also, learned counsel for respondent No.5/TRAI[1], are present on advance notice.

6. This Court, during the recent summer vacation, entertained the relevant writ petitions instituted by the petitioner seeking appropriate

1 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India reliefs aggrieved by the disconnection/switching off the telecast of the petitioner‟s channel, viz. “TV[9] Telugu” by respondent No.2 in a wilful breach of the TRAI‟s Interconnection Regulations, 2017, Quality of Service Regulations, 2017 and also in violation of the mutually entered upon Agreement dated 08.05.2024, and for declaration of such acts to be illegal and unconstitutional.

7. Shorn off unnecessary details, the petitioner is a broadcaster of its channel through respondent No.2 which is a „Multi System Operator‟ or in other words a „service provider‟ under the TRAI Act, 1997 and it is alleged that the telecast has been disrupted since a new Government has been formed in the State of Andhra Pradesh, and the alleged acts are motivated on account of some political vendetta.

8. It would be suffice to state that based on the pleadings as also submissions addressed by the learned counsels for the parties, this Court passed the following direction:-

9. Learned counsels for the petitioner has submitted that respondents No. 1 to 3 were categorically directed to ensure that the telecast of the petitioner‟s channel shall continue in terms of the position that was existing prior to 06.06.2024 and the telecast shall not be disrupted in any manner.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has alluded to the e-mail dated 27.06.2024 received at 09:17 PM from one of the consumers, to the effect that he was unable to watch TV[9] on SDV cable. A photograph of the screenshot of the TV is also placed on the record, to show that TV[9] Telugu Channel was not being telecast/aired on such date.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has urged that he had even made a statement before the Court on 24.06.2024 to the effect that the transmission/telecast of the channel i.e. TV[9] Telugu, remain undisrupted and very well in place.

12. During the course of arguments, a suggestion was mooted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that whether or not transmission/telecast has been disrupted or not, could only be ascertained by an expert body, and therefore, a directive may be given to respondent No.5/TRAI to appoint its official to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. The said suggestion was opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No.5/TRAI.

13. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties at Bar, this Court finds that since the petitioner has already moved before the TDSAT[2], and the matters are coming up for hearing tomorrow before the said authority, the present contempt petitions, which raise disputed questions of facts cannot be entertained. It is but appropriate that the issues raised should only be decided by the competent authority i.e. TDSAT.