AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents in detail on the issue whether respondents are service providers and
therefore, amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as per provisions of the TRAI Act, 1997.
From the materials on record, it appears that petitioner had earlier filed a suit against the respondents for specific performance of contract and to
provide a right to the petitioner for transmitting the produce of respondents who are said to be in the business of production of TV news media as
well entertainment content with a pre-dominant focus on the affairs of the State of Meghalaya, as pleaded in para 3 of the petition. The suit was
ultimately withdrawn by the petitioner and now he is pursuing the present petition for award of Rs. 10 lakhs as damages on account of alleged illegal
disconnection of respondents' channels ""U Peitngor Cable News"", ""Ri Khasi Channel"", ""T7 News"" and ""Batesi TV News and Entertainment""Â from
the network of petitioner with a further prayer to injunct the respondents from disconnecting those channels.
The respondents have strongly denied the understanding of the petitioner about the respondents being a service provider. Their case is specific in
paras 5 and 6 of the reply that they are not broadcasters or the licensee or the service provider and are not involved in any form of telecommunication
services in order to come under the purview of Section 14 of the TRAI Act or within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Their specific case is that they
are not engaged in any service/ business of providing any signals to any entity whatsoever and are mere content providers without any role in
providing TV signals which is the role of service provider.
In the rejoinder, the petitioner has specifically dealt with paras 5 and 6 of the reply and denied the claim of the respondents by declaring it to be false.
However, the materials brought on record through the rejoinder do not show that respondents are in the business of providing cable services and
carrying signals through cable or are registered with Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as broadcaster or even as an MSO.
There appears to be a confusion on account of use of the term 'channel' in a loose sense. The respondents have an establishment called studio and
they are admittedly, in the business of creating / producing news and entertainment contents which appear to be in local khasi language and, therefore,
having some attraction in the concerned area of Meghalaya but beyond the role of content owner there is no material to substantiate the case of the
petitoner that respondents are providing broadcasting services by disseminating any form of communication by transmission of elctromagnetic waves
through space or through cables with the intention that it be received by general public directly or indirectly. For dissemination of such communication,
a broadcaster is required to have necessary permission from the Central Government and cable operators also have to meet with the requirement of
registration as per provisions of law.
There is no material, as already noted, to show that for the alleged local channels' dissemination, the respondents are registered as cable operators.
With the rejoinder, the petitioner has annexed a copy of the judgment dated 4.2.2010 by this Tribunal in the case of Polymer Channel Vs. Sumangali
Cable Vision. That judgment accepted the case of the petitioner therein that it was, as a cable operator, transmitting local cable channels. The case
of that petitioner that it was thus acting as a broadcaster, was accepted. In the present case, the petitioner has alleged that respondents are
broadcasters but without showing that they are disseminating signals either throught space or through cables which is essential component of
broadcasting services and unless such broadcasting service is shown to be provided by the respondent, they cannot be accepted to be covered by the
definition of the word ""broadcaster"" in terms Regulation 2(e) of the relevant Regulation framed by TRAI.
After careful analysis of materials on record and the facts pleaded by both the parties, it is not possible to hold that respondents are broadcasters and
amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Even assuming otherwise, unless the petitioner succeeds in showing that respondents are lawfully
engaged in the business of broadcasting, it would not be possible to issue injunction to direct the respondents to make their news contents available to
the petitioner.
In view of aforesaid findings, this Tribunal accepts the objection to jurisdiction of this Tribunal raised by the respondents. The petition is accordingly
dismissed.
If the petitioner wants to approach the Civil Court again, he may act as per legal advise and in accordance with law.