Siti Networks Ltd. vs Rathod Cable Network And Anr

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent in respect of M.A. No. 159 of 2020 filed by the petitioner under

Section 20 of the TRAI Act and also M.A. no. 20 of 2021 filed by respondent no. 1 seeking modification of order passed on 4.12.2020 whereby its

right to file a reply was closed.

The diminishing number of active STBS and growing number of deactivated STBs entrusted by the petitioner to the respondent after passing of the

interim order on 16.7.2020 is alarming. According to petitioner, when the interim order was communicated to the respondent no. 1 on 20.7.2020, out

of 856 STBs, 579 had been become de-active and subsequently when additional affidavit was filed on 7.12.2020 the number of de-active STBs was

821. In practical terms and undisputedly as on date the number of deactive STBs covers the whole lot of petitioner’s STBS barring may be one

or two.

Parties have filed reply and rejoinder to M.A. no. 159 of 2020. Respondent no. 1 on 22.12.2020 filed a reply to the M.A. and also a reply to the

additional affidavit. Annexure C3 (Colly) to the M.A. which contains log reports to show details of 4 STBs deactivated on 21.7.2020, admittedly

shows incorrect VC numbers and STB numbers of those four concerned STBs/VCs. Subsequently in the additional affidavit Annexure C1 was

included to bring on record a copy of the log report as on 25.11.2020. At page no. 16 of the additional affidavit the correct VC numbers of such

deactivated STBs is appearing at serial numbers 568 to 571 showing the date of deactivation as per log to be 21.7.2020. The reason of the

inadvertent error while downloading the log report in Annexure C3 has been explained in paras 6 and 7 of the rejoinder. Since the reply and stand of

the respondent in respect of M.A. No. 159 of 2020 is based largely on the aforesaid error in Annexure C3, there is no justified defence appearing

from the record as to why the STBs and connections supplied by the petitioner to the respondent were deactivated in such large numbers after passing

of the interim order.

Learned counsel for the respondent has, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the licence of the respondent as an LCO expired

sometime back which in law would affect the agreement between the parties also but these legal issues do not offer any valid defense for deactivation

of petitioner's STBs and VCs after notice of the interim order. Reasons for such deactivation can only be guessed. In such circumstances, the

respondent no. 1 is held responsible for violating the interim order of this Tribunal. If it had any compelling reason, it ought to have filed an

application for vacating the interim order or for obtaining leave to effect deactivation for any good legal or technical reason. That was not done.

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Tribunal has to consider the unfortunate task of imposing penalty on respondent no. 1. The extent of such

penalty will depend upon several factors including the conduct expected of respondent no. 1 in this very matter in the light of two requests made on

behalf of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks appropriate orders to the effect that respondent no. 1 should restore and activate all the STBs and VCs of the

petitioner as in the past, before the interim order was passed so that its bonafide may be established. In the alternative, it had been submitted that if

for any reason respondent no. 1 is unable to activate the STBs and VCs which were operational at the relevant time, then a direction be issued for

return of the STBs and VCs without any delay, otherwise the loss of the petitioner shall continue to be aggravated.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 sought instructions after seeking a pass-over and thereafter he has submitted that respondent no. 1 has

expressed inability to activate and restore petitioner’s STBs and VCs but he is ready to collect the STBs and other accessories from the

subscribers' premises and whatever is collected and available with him, shall be returned to the petitioner against receipt in about four weeks' time.

In the considered view of this Tribunal, it would be proper to direct the respondent that as per its stand it should return the STBs with accessories by

collecting those from the subscribes' premises within the time indicated above. It would be in the interest of respondent no. 1 that maximum

number of STBs and accessories are accounted for and returned. Passing of order for penalty will be considered on the next date.

Post the matter under the same head on 25.3.2021. Â

M. A. No. 20 of 2021 filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 is allowed in the interest of justice so as to give him one final opportunity to file reply to the

petition. As prayed, two weeks’ final time is granted for filing reply. M.A. No. 20 of 2021 is allowed and disposed of. It will be open for

the petitioner to file rejoinder to the reply within 4 weeks. At the time of return of STBs and other accessories, the receipt will indicate whether the

equipments were received in working condition or not. Â