Radhakrishnan V. vs. Union Of INDIA - Kerala High Court, 09 April 2019

CASE REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR TUE AY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WA.No. 278 of 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6681/2018 of HIGH COURT APPELLANT/PETITIONER: CABLE OPERATORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION JAIHIND BUILDINGS, KUMBALAPALLY ROAD, CHALIKKAVATTOM, VENNALA P.O., ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY TIS PRESIDENT NAVEEN V.D., BY ADVS.SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (KANNAMPUZHA) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING, ROOM NO. 560, A-WING, SHASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 002. 2 TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (TRAI), MAHANAGAR, DOOR SANCHAR BHAVAN, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI 11002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3 DEN NETWORKS LIMITED, KOSHY ARCADE, OPPOSITE OBERON MALL, ANCHUMANA BYEPASS ROAD, ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON (SR.) SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC SMT.NAYANPALLY RAMOLA SRI.JAI MOHAN SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2019 ALONG WITH WA.279/2019, WA.281/2019, WA.282/2019, WA.310/2019, WA.313/2019, WA.331/2019, WA.332/2019, WA.358/2019, THE COURT ON 09.04.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 2 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR TUE AY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WA.No. 279 of 2019 AGAINST JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 36540/2018 of HIGH COURT APPELLANT/PETITIONERS 1 KISHORE.V.K.S PROPRIETOR,VKS CABLE NETWORK, CHERIAMANGAD, KOILANDY, CALICUT DISTRICT 2 RAMESAN PROPRIETOR,KEEZHARIYUR CABLE NETWORK, NADUVATHOOR P.O.,KOILANDY, CALICUT DISTRICT. 3 PADMESAN P.K, PROPRIETOR, WORLD NET CABLES, KOLLAM.P.O, KOILANDY, CALICUT DISTRICT. 4 HONEY MOL,PROPRIETOR, SPACE VISION, ILLATHUTHAZHA, VIYYOOR, CALICUT DISTRICT. 5 VANAJA A.K,NEW SPACE VISION LABELS, ILLATHUTHAZAHA, VIYYOOR, CALICUT DISTRICT.

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 3 : 6 JAYAN K.,TELNET CABLE VISION, KOYILANDI, CALICUT DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (KANNAMPUZHA) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING, ROOM NO.560,A- WING, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001 2 TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA(TRAI) MAHANAGAR, DOOR SANCHAR BHAVAN, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI-11002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3 DEN NET WORKS LIMITED, KOSHY ARCADE, OPPOSITE OBERON MALL, ANCHUMANA BYEPASS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADVS. SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON(SR.) SMT.NAYANPALLY RAMOLA SRI.JAI MOHAN SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2019, ALONG WITH WA.358/2019, WA.332/2019, WA.331/2019, WA.313/2019,

WA.310/2019,

WA.278/2019,

WA.282/2019, WA.281/2019, THE COURT ON 09.04.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 4 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR TUE AY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WA.No. 281 of 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 41939/2018 of HIGH COURT APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1 RADHAKRISHNAN V. AGED 52 YEARS S/O. VELAPPAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, SREYAS CABLE VISION, T.C. 21/507, AMBIKA BHAVAN, PALLITHANAM, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 002 2 VIJAYA BHASKER V AGED 50 YEARS S/O. VISWANATHAN, PROPRIETOR, CABLE LINKS, T.C. 20/50(51), RADHA NIVAS, PNRA 52B, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 002 3 G.K. SELVAKUMAR AGED 42 YEARS S/O. GANGADHARAN PILLAI, KARTHIKA PROPRIETOR, CABLE NETWORK, T.C. 54/1445, GANGA, SOMAN NAGAR, NEDUMCAUD, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 002

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 5 : 4 PRADEEP KUMAR N. AGED 45 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN, PROPRIETOR, PUNARTHAM CABLE NETWORK, GOURI BHAVAN, MANIKATESWARAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 013 5 NAGARAJAN V AGED 46 YEARS S/O. VISWANATHAN, PROPRIETOR, CABLE LINK, T.C. 23/446, VALIYASALA, CHALAI P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 036 6 ROYNOLD JOSEPH GOMEZ AGED 48 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH GOMEZ, PROPRIETOR, RUFI CABLE NETWORK, T.C. 30/1649(1), BETHEL, CHAYAKUDI LANE, PETTAH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA- 695 024 7 B.SUNILKUMAR AGED 46 YEARS,S/O. BAGAVATHEESWARAN, PROPRIETOR, KAVYA CABLE NETWOK, T.C. 39/1696 (10), KRWA 58, KURIYATHI, MANACAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 009 8 G. JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. GANAPATHY, PROPRIETOR, GREAT THREE CABLE NETWOK, T.C. 20/876(5), SNRA 21, SASTHA NAGAR, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 002 9 PRATHEESH J.S. AGED 35 YEARS S/O. JAYADEVAN, PROPRIETOR, STARNET CABLE NETWORK, PRADEESH BHAVAN, VP8/603, PANANKARA, KODUNGANOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 013

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 6 : 10 S. NEELAKANDA DAS, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. SUBBIAH PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, S.M. CABLE TV, T.C. 38/618, KAMUKUVILAKAM STREET, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 036 11 SHARMILA V AGED 45 YEARS W/O. VIJAYA BHASKER, PROPRIETOR, VISMAYA COMMUNICATIONS, T.C. 20/50(51), RADHA NIVAS, PNRA 52B, PREM NAGAR, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 002 12 SAFEER M AGED 46 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED ABDUL KHADER, PROPRIETOR, UNITECH CABLE NETWORK, T.C. 20/2127, CHEELANTHIVILAKAM, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 002 13 SREELATHA V.S. AGED 44 YEARS W/O. SAGAR, PROPRIETOR, AKASH TELE ENTERTAINERS, CHANDRIKALAYAM, CHANGA P.O, VELLANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 542 14 PARAMESWARAN NAIR N, AGED 55 YEARS S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, PARM CABLE, T.C. 21/1622A, NEDUMCAUD, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA -695 002 15 RINA ROYNOD GOMEZ, AGED 44 YEARS W/O. ROYNOLD JOSEPH GOMEZ, PROPRIETOR, RUFI NETWORK, T.C. 30/1649(1), BETHEL, CHAYAKUDI ROAD,PETTAH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 024

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 7 : 16 MANJU N AGED 40 YEARS W/O. NAGARAJAN, PROPRIETOR, PRIYA CABLE NETWORK, T.C. 21/215(11), RADHA NIVAS, SCRA 100A, 1ST STREET, SWAMI VIVEKANANDA LANE, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, KERALA-695 002 17 B. JAYACHANDRAN AGED 51 YEARS S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, HOTLINE CABLE NETWORK, T.C. 38/2852, PAZHAYASALA, CHENTHITTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 036 18 K. KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, CEE CEE NETWORK, CHIRAKKUZHI VEEDU, ERUMODE, ARYANAD PO, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM, KERALA-695 542 19 NAVEENKUMAR A AGED 51 YEARS S/O. ANANDA PRABHU, PROPRIETOR, UNIVERSAL VISION WORKS, T.C. 20/2659, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 002 20 VENUGOPAL C AGED 44 YEARS S/O CHANDRANATHAN, PROPRIETOR, DEVI AND AISWARYA CABLE NETWORKS, K.P. 4/992, 6TH STONE, KARAKULAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 564 21 SURESH KUMAR M AGED 44 YEARS S/O. MANI, PROPRIETOR, STAR VISION CABLE NETWORK, MEPPUKADA, MALAYINKIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 571

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 8 : 22 LAL KUMAR S. AGED 46 YEARS S/O. SUKUMARAN, PROPRIETOR, DHEEPAM CABLE NETWORK, MEPPUKADA, KAPPIVILA, KOLLODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 571 23 SATHEESH KUMAR T.M. AGED 46 YEARS S/O. THANKAPPAN, PROPRIETOR, AAKASH KATTAKADA CABLE NETWORK, NEAR TREASURY, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 572 24 UDAYA KUMAR K, AGED 52 YEARS S/O. KRISHNA ASHARI, PROPRIETOR, VINAYAKA CABLE NETWORK, KRISHNALAYAM, ALAMUKKU, POOVACHAL P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 575 25 ABHILASH M.D AGED 43 YEARS S/O. MADHAVAN, PROPRIETOR, AMMU CABLE VISION, ARASUMOOD, URIACODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 543 26 RAJESH R. AGED 48 YEARS S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, LEKSHMY CABLE VISION, T.C. 49/931, KONCHIRAVILA MANACAUD P.O , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 009 27 ANILKUMAR C. AGED 46 YEARS S/O. CHANDRAN, PROPRIETOR, A.S. CABLE NETWORK, T.C. 67/1734 (1), THURAKKARA, SIVADEEPAM, KALLADIMUGAM, MANACAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 009

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 9 : 28 SUNILKUMAR G AGED 40 YEARS S/O. GOPINATHAN, PROPRIETOR, SREE CABLE VISION, CHARUVILA VEEDU, PLAVARA, PACHA P.O, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, KERALA-695 562 29 LALU S. AGED 39 YEARS S/O. SASIDHARAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, BHARATH CABLE NETWORK, CHANDRIKA VILASOM, PIRAPPINTHALA, THALAYAL, BALARAMAPURAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 501 30 SUDARSANKUMAR V AGED 57 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, KANAKUZHY CABLE NETWORK, HARI BHAVAN, KULATHUMMEL, KATTAKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 572 31 SANTHOSH KUMAR J.P. AGED 50 YEARS S/O. JANARDANAN NADAR, PROPRIETOR, SANDEEP COMMUNICATIONS, T.C. 52/454,POOZHIKUNNU, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 019 32 VINOD KUMAR S. AGED 43 YEARS S/O. SASIDHARAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, AB VISION, 48/29-27 , AYANIVILA, PUTHEN VEEDU, THRIKKANNAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 006 33 BIJUKUMAR C AGED 43 YEARS S/O. CHELLAPPAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, ROYAL CABLE VISION, PURATHAVILA VEEDU, ANNOOR , KUNNAPUZHA, THRIKKANNAPURAM, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 006. W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 10 : 34 S. VINUKUMAR AGED 40 YEARS S/O. SASIDHARAN, PROPRIETOR, SREE PUTHURKONAM CABLE NETWORK, MALAVIKA, HARITHA NAGAR-68, VAYALIKKADA, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 013 35 RAJESH B AGED 40 YEARS S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR, VIGNESHWARA CABLE NETWORK, SOUMYA BHAVAN, KUNDUVILOM, PERUKAVU, PEYAD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 573 36 RATHEESH RAVI AGED 42 YEARS S/O. RAVI, PROPRIETOR, SURYA CABLE NETWORK, T.C. 10/42, PLAVILA VEEDU, PIPINMOODU, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 010 37 N. RAMESH AGED 55 YEARS S/O. NEELAKANTAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, MASS COMMUNICATIONS, T.C. 40/578, KARTHIKA, KURIATHI, MANACAUD, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, KERALA-695 009 BY ADVS. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (KANNAMPUZHA) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING, ROOM NO. 560, A- WING, SHASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 002

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 11 : 2 TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (TRAI) MAHANAGAR, DOOR SANCHAR BHAVAN, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI-11002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3 DEN NET WORKS LIMITED KOSHY ARCADE, OPPOSITE OBERON MALL, ANCHUMANA BYEPASS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. R1 AND R2 BY MR.JAISHANKAR V. NAIR, CGC R3 BY SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON(SR.) SMT.NAYANPALLY RAMOLA SRI.JAI MOHAN SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2019,, ALONG WITH WA.358/2019, WA.332/2019, WA.331/2019, WA.313/2019,

WA.310/2019,

WA.279/2019,

WA.278/2019, WA.282/2019, THE COURT ON 09.04.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 12 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR TUE AY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WA.No. 282 of 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32377/2018 of HIGH COURT APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

DRISYA CABLE NETWORK, PARUTHUMPARA, KUZHIMATTOM. PO., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN-686533 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER P.J. CHACKO AGED 54 YEARS , S/O. P.P. JOSEPH

SUPER CABLE VISION, PANAMPADI JUNCTION, VELOOR PO., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT , PIN- 686003 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER M.S. RAJAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. SUKUMARAN

JOSE MATHEW, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.C.P. MATHAI, PROPRIETOR, AADAM VISION CABLE NETWORK CHHENGALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT – 686585

M.K. PRADEEP, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUMON, PROPRIETOR, MEGHADOOTH CABLE VISION, MANVATTOM P.O., MEMURI, KURUPPANTHARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN -686 603

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 13 :

MANEESH, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. V.N. MOHANAN, PROPRIETOR,,THATTAMPARAMBIL CABLE VISION, ONAMTHURUTH PO., NEENDOOR, ATHIRAMPUZHA. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT -686 602

JOSE JOSEPH @ SAJI JOSEPH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPHH VARKEY, PROPRIETOR, CENTRAL CABLE NET WORK, NAZRETH HILL P.O., KURVILANGAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT – 686 633

SANALKUMAR T.N., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. NEELAKANTAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PROPRIETOR, SUPER STAR CABLE NET WORK (STAR VISION CABLE), THELLAKAM, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT – 686 631

ANIL KUMAR P.G., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, TOP NET CABLE VISION, MEVADA, THDANAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686573

MANOJ S. NAIR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. SIVARAMAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, NEW TO VISION CABLE NET WORK, KOZHUVANAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT -686 573

10.

B. VILASINI, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, TOP VISION, MEVADA, KOTTAYAM – 686 573 BY ADVS. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (KANNAMPUZHA) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING, ROOM NO. 560,

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 14 : A-WING, SHASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI -110 002

TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (TRAI), MAHANAGAR, DOOR SANCHAR BHAVAN, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI -110 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

DEN NET WORKS LIMITED, KOSHY ARCADE, OPPOSITE OBERON MALL, ANCHUMANA BYEPASS ROAD, ERNAKULAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, 682 024 BY ADVS. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON(SR.) SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC SMT.NAYANPALLY RAMOLA SRI.JAI MOHAN SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2019, ALONG WITH WA.358/2019, WA.332/2019, WA.331/2019, WA.313/2019,

WA.310/2019,

WA.279/2019,

WA.278/2019, WA.281/2019, THE COURT ON 09.04.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 15 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR TUE AY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WA.No. 310 of 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 42355/2018 of HIGH COURT APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1 JAMES P.X., AGED 38 YEARS S/O. XAVIER P.O., PROPRIETOR, THREE STAR, PULIKKAL HOUSE, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI - 682030. 2 LIJOS SCARIA, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. M.M. SCARIA, PROPRIETOR, HIGH POWER CABLE TV, MULAYANKAVU P.O., OTTAPALAM - 679337. 3 ABDUL RAZAK PULIKKAL, AGED 47 YEARS,S/O. HASSAINAR, PROPRIETOR, CITY CABLE N VISION, POTTACHIRA, NELLAYA, OTTAPPALAM – 679335. 4 MUHAMMED NAVAS P., AGED 36 YEARS S/O. ALI P., PROPRIETOR, N.G. CABLE NETWORK, YARAN, VALLAPUZHA, OTTAPPALAM - 679336. BY ADVS.

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 16 : SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (KANNAMPUZHA) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING, ROOM NO.560, A- WING, SHASTHRI,BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110002. 2 TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (TRAI), MAHANAGAR, DOOR SANCHAR BHAVAN, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI - 110002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3 DEN NET WORK LIMITED, KOSHY ARCADE, OPPOSITE OBERON MALL, ANCHUMANA BYEPASS ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, BY ADVS. SRI.JAISANKAR V. MENON, CGC SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON(SR.) SMT.NAYANPALLY RAMOLA SRI.JAI MOHAN SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2019, ALONG WITH WA.358/2019, WA.332/2019, WA.331/2019, WA.313/2019,

WA.279/2019,

WA.278/2019,

WA.282/2019, WA.281/2019, THE COURT ON 09.04.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 17 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR TUE AY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WA.No. 313 of 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 37788/2018 of HIGHCOURT APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1 JOSEPH JOY AGED 78 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, SUPERSTAR CABLE VISION, MANNANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2 T.T.THOMAS AGED 76 YEARS S/O.THOMMAN, PROPRIETOR, TOM VISION, NEENDOOR, CHAMAKKALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3 SAJEEV KUMAR AGED 49 YEARS S/O.DHARMAJAN, PROPRIETOR, SEVENESS NETWORK, VAYALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 18 : 4 GEORGE THOMAS AGED 36 YEARS S/O.VARKEY THOMAS, PROPRIETOR, ALFRED DIGITAL VISION AND BROADBAND SERVICE, KEZHUVANKULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5 AMBILY JOJI AGED 38 YEARS W/O.JOJI JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, ALPHONSA DIGITAL VISION, MUTHOLIKADAVU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6 K.G.PRAMOD AGED 43 YEARS S/O.K.N.GOPALAN, PROPRIETOR, CENTRAL VISION TV NETWORK, MANJOOR SOUTH, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 7 SAIMON JOHN, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.JOHN ABRAHAM, PROPRIETOR, HOME VISION, NEENDOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 8 BENOY CHERIAN,AGED 43 YEARS S/O.CHERIAN, PROPRIETOR, STAR COMMUNICATIONS, POOTHIRI, AMAYANNOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 9 BENOJ CHERIAN, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.CHERIAN, PROPRIETOR, STAR CCTV, AMAYANNOOR, KOTTYAM DISTRICT. 10 BIJU NARAYANAN, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, PROPRIETOR, SARATHI CABLE VISION, MATTAKKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 11 PREETHI S.MOHAN, AGED 46 YEARS W/O.SASI MOHAN, PROPRIETOR, SILPA CABLE NETWORK, KALLARA SOUTH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 12 SHIBU.K.R. AGED 48 YEARS S/O.K.K.RAJAPPAN, PROPRIETOR, SR COMMUNICATIONS, KALLARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 19 : BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (KANNAMPUZHA) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING, ROOM NO.560, A- WING, SHASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 11002. 2 TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (TRAI) MAHANAGAR, DOOR SANCHAR BHAVAN, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI - 11002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3 DEN NET WORKS LIMITED KOSHY ARCADE, OPPOSITE OBERON MALL, ANCHUMANA BYEPASS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADVS. SHRI JAI SHANKAR V. NAIR, CGC SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON(SR.) SMT.NAYANPALLY RAMOLA SRI.JAI MOHAN SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2019, ALONG WITH WA.358/2019, WA.332/2019, WA.331/2019, WA.310/2019,

WA.279/2019,

WA.278/2019,

WA.282/2019, WA.281/2019, THE COURT ON 09.04.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 20 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR TUE AY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WA.No. 331 of 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32435/2018 of HIGH COURT APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1 K.K.MOHANAN AGED 67 YEARS S/O. KOCHU, PROPRIETOR, KANNARA CABLE VISION, MARIATHURUTHU P.O, KUDAMALOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 017 2 SREEJITH V.S. AGED 49 YEARS S/O. V.K SOMAN, PROPRIETOR, ARATHY COMMUNICATIONS, KADAPOOR, VATTUKULAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 587 3 BINO ZACHARIAS, AGED 42 YEARS S/O. N.C. SCARIA, PROPRIETOR, LIYA CABLE VISION, KANNAKKARY P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686 632

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 21 : 4 ANNIE BINO,AGED 42 YEARS S/O. M.T. KURIAN, PROPRIETOR, AAJ TAK CABLE VISION, KANAKKERY P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686 632 5 REJUMON K.P.,AGED 39 YEARS S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN K.G., PROPRIETOR, DEVU CABLE NETWORK, MARIYAPPALLY P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 013 6 SREEKANTH S.,AGED 41 YEARS S/O. SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PROPRIETOR, THOTTATHIL DRISYA CABLE, MARANGATTUPALLY P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 635 7 ARJUNAN A.S.,AGED 48 YEARS S/O. M.R. SIVAN, PROPRIETOR, AISWARYA CABLE COMMUNICATION, MATTAKKARA P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 564 8 SUNITHA R.,AGED 37 YEARS D/O. RADHAKRISHNAPILLAI, PROPRIETOR, AKSHARA CABLE COMMUNICATION, MATTAKKARA P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 564 9 P.R. BIJUKUMAR AGED 46 YEARS S/O. REGHU RAMAN ACHARI, PROPRIETOR, WINNER SAT CABLE NETWORKS, PUTHETTUKUNNEL BULD. MANJOOR P.O, KURUPPANTHARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 603 10 SABU P.K. AGED 51 YEARS S/O. KUTTY T.K, PROPRIETOR, ADITHYA CABLE KOLLAD, KOLLAD P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 004

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 22 : 11 GEORGE JOSEPH AGED 44 YEARS S/O. M.V. JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, GEO CABLE TV NETWORK, PALAKARA, KADUTHURUTHY P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 604 12 ABHILASH R. AGED 40 YEARS S/O. N. RAJAPPAN, PROPRIETOR, STAR NET CABLE VISION, CHEMPUMKALAYIL, KUMARANALLOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 016 13 SUNIL K. SEBASTIAN AGED 50 YEARS S/O. K.P. SEBASTIAN, PROPRIETOR, DENITTA CABLE NETWORK, KURIANAD P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686 636 14 T.S. AJIKUMAR AGED 51 YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, SREERAM CABLE VISION, LAKKATTOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686 502 15 SAJIMON P.K. AGED 43 YEARS S/O. KUNJUMON, PROPRIETOR, NEW SAT CTV NETWORK, PUTHENPURAGAL, ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -686 604 16 RAJESH C.B. AGED 45 YEARS S/O. BHASKARAN C.G, PROPRIETOR VISHNU VISION CABLES, VELOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 003 17 SHAJI K AGED 51 YEARS S/O. KUNJAN KUNJACHAN, PROPRIETOR STAR VISION, THAYYIL BUILDING, KARAPUZHA P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 003

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 23 : 18 DIPU K.M.,AGED 32 YEARS S/O. MOHANAN, PROPRIETOR, DRISYA COMMUNICATION CABLE TV, GANDHIGRAM, KURICHITHANAM P .O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 634 19 ANIL KUMAR K.P.,AGED 46 YEARS S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR NEW WAVE VISION CABLE TV NETWORK, NSS KARAYOGAM BULDG, THIRUVANCHOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 019 20 K.K. SUNIL,AGED 48 YEARS S/O. K.V. KESAVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PROPRIETOR THIRD EYE CTV, KIZHAKKEKUZHIYADI ILLAM, PUNNATHURA (W) P .O, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686 631 21 K.M. KURIAN,AGED 57 YEARS S/O. KORAH UTHUPPU, PROPRIETOR, ALVIN CABLE TV, AMAYANNOOR P.O, PADINJAREMANALEL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 019 22 SHAJI MATHEW,AGED 51 YEARS S/O. P.S. MATHEW, PROPRIETOR, CHOICE VISION CABLE NETWORK, AMAYANNOOR P.O, PADINJAREKUTTU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 019 23 V.N. VIJAYAKUMAR,AGED 54 YEARS S/O. T.K. NARAYANAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, SIGMA SAT VISION, MANJAMATTAM, MOZHOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 507 24 ANIL KUMAR K,AGED 48 YEARS S/O. P.N. KRISHNANKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, POOTHARAYIL CABLE VISION, PARAMACKIL KAVALA, KURUMULLOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 632 25 BIJU VARGHESE,AGED 39 YEARS S/O. VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR, RIYA CABLE VISION, APPAMCHIRA, POOZHIKAL P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 604

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 24 : BY ADVS. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (KANNAMPUZHA) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING, ROOM NO. 560, A- WING, SHASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 002 2 TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (TRAI) MAHANAGAR, DOOR SANCHAR BHAVAN, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3 DEN NET WORKS LIMITED KOSHY ARCADE, OPPOSITE OBERON MALL, ANCHUMANA BYEPASS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

BY ADVS. SHRI JAI SHANKAR V. NAIR, CGC SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON(SR.) SMT.NAYANPALLY RAMOLA SRI.JAI MOHAN SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2019, ALONG WITH WA.358/2019, WA.332/2019, WA.313/2019, WA.310/2019,

WA.279/2019,

WA.278/2019,

WA.282/2019, WA.281/2019, THE COURT ON 09.04.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 25 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR TUE AY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WA.No. 332 of 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 41210/2018 of HIGHCOURT APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1 RAMACHANDRAN H., AGED 52 YEARS S/O. S HARIHARAN, PROPRIETOR, DIVINE CABLE TV NET WORK, T.C. NO. 43/490-5, HARMONY KBAC 40 (C) VALLAKADAVU, TRIVANDRUM, 695 008. 2 P. SURESH KUMAR, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. PADMANABHA PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, DRISYA CABLE TV NETWORK, T.C. NO. 29 /413 (2) CHITRA, PETTAH P.O., TRIVANDRUM, 695 024. 3 HARISH.N.R.,AGED 50 YEARS S/O. S.N. PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, SWASTIK TELESYSTEMS, SNRWA. 55, SUBHASH NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM, 695 008. W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 26 : 4 K. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 49 YEARS S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, PROPRIETOR, PRIYA CABLE NET WORK, CLRA 82, SREEVARAHAM, MANACAUD, TRIVANDRUM, 695 009. 5 S. PARAMEWSWARAN, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.M. SIVARAMAN, PROPRIETOR,MUDRA CABLE NET WORK, CRA- 111, JAPADH, CHEMPAKASSERRY, PERUNTHANNI. TRIVANDRUM 695 008. 6 B. KUMAR, AGED 55 YEARS S/O. BHAGAVATHEESHWARA IYER, PROPRIETOR, VINAYAKA CABLE VIDEO VISION, T.C. NO. 37/68A VAZHAPPALLY JUNCTION, WEST STREET, FORT, TRIVANDRUM 695 023. 7 RAJESH. N., AGED 48 YEARS S/O. NEELAKANTAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, MAS CABLE NETWORK, NANDHANAM, T.C. NO. 41/386 (2) MANACAUD P.O., TRIVANDRUM 695 009. 8 R. VENUGOPALAN NAIR, AGED 35 YEARS S/O. RAMA KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, SHIVA CABLE NET WORK , AGRA 74, ASWATHY, PEROORKADA P.O., TRIVANDRUM, 695 008. 9 PRASANTH KUMAR G.R., AGED 44 YEARS K. GANGADHARAN PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, NEW VISION CABLE NETWORK, THIRUVATHIRA, MARUTHOOR, VATTAPPARA P.O., TRIVANDRUM 695 015. 10 SURESH KUMAR, A.S., AGED 43 YEARS S/O. SUDHAKARAN, PROPRIETOR SHIVASAKTHI CABLE NET WORK, LEELABHAVAN, INDIRA NAGAR, PEROORKADA P.O., TRIVANDRUAM 695 008. W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 27 : 11 G.R. PRAKASH KUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS S/O. K. GANGADHARAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, DRISHYA CABLE VISION, ACHYUTHAM SAUHRIDA NAGAR, NEDUMOM, MUKKOLA, TRIVANDRUM 695 015. 12 KUMARI BINDU.R., AGED 44 YEARS D/O. V.R. NAIR, PROPRIETOR, DEVI ABLE NET WORK, CLRA 82, SREEVARAHAM, MANACAUD, TRIVANDRUM 695 009. 13 BINDHU.T.S., AGED 44 YEARS D/O. THANKKAPPAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, VRINDHA CABLE NET WORK, DEVI KRIPA, NEAR KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., TRIVANDRUM 695 043. 14 SAJEEV. S., AGED 43 YEARS S/O. L.SIVANANDHAN, PROPRIETOR, STATE CABLE VISION, SIVALAYAM, MUKKOLA P.O., MUKKOLA, TRIVANDRUM, 695 015. 15 APARNA. V., AGED 23 YEARS D/O. G. VENKATRARAMAKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR AIYSHMA CABLE NET WORK, T.C. NO. 40/1555, EAST PUTHEN STREET, MANACAUD, TRIVANDRUM 695 009. 16 SANIL KUMAR. S, AGED 43 YEARS S/O. SURENDRAN, PROSPECTOR, SK CABLE NET WORK, AYILATH, TC 16/757 (2) MUDIPURA LANE, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM, 695 014. 17 SHOBANA.V.,AGED 23 YEARS D/O. VENKATARAMAKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR, AIYSHMAS CABLE NET WORKS, T.C. NO. /1457 (2), THIRD PUTHEN SREET, MANACAUD, TRIVANDRUM, 695 009. W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 28 : 18 REVATHY. N., AGED 45 YEARS D/O. NARAYANAN, PROPRIETOR, DVN CABLE, T.C. NO. 40/316, SECOND PUTHEN STREET, MANACAUD, TRIVANDRUM, 695 009. 19 RAJALEKSHMY, AGED 44 YEARS D/O. M SUBRAMANIAN, PROPRIETOR, TRNASINDIA NETWORKS, T.C. NO. 40/152, FPSRA 122, MANACAUD, TRIVANDRUM 695 009. 20 G. VENKATARAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 53 YEARS S/O. P. GANAPATHY, PROPRIETOR, VRK VISION, T.C. NO. 37/1262 (1) G.G. NIVAS, SOUTH FORT, TRIVANDRUM 685 023. 21 M. SURESH, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. MADHU .G., PROPRIETOR , SREESAKTHI CABLE NET WORK MUTTATHURA, KALLUMMOODU, TRIVANDRUM, 695 008. 22 PRADEEP KUMAR S.,AGED 53 YEARS S/O. R. SUKUMARAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, SHINE CABLE NETWORK, ELLIPODE, TRIVANDRUM 695002. 23 SWAMI RAJ,AGED 45 YEARS S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, PROPRIETOR, PERFECT DIGITAL CABLE NET WORK, T.C. NO. 20/1091, MNRA -11, MANAS ANGAR, KARAMANA P.O., TRIVANDRUM 695 002. 24 V.S. GAUTHAM,AGED 48 YEARS S/O. S. VENURAJAN, PROPRIETOR, MOON WALK CABLE NETWORK, TC 50/1671, KALADY, AGRA -2, TRIVANDRUM 695 002. W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 29 : 25 AJOTH KUMAR,AGED 46 YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, SREHARI,. PROPRIETOR, MASS CABLE NETWORK, T.C. NO. 41/1164, 13, KNAR PNRA 110, MANACAUD, TRIVANDRUM 695 009. 26 VARDHA, AGED 43 YEARS S/O. RAMAYYAN, PROPRIETOR, A AND A CABLE NET WORK T.C. NO. 20/1173, (2) MELARANOOR, KARAMANA P.O., TRIVANDRUM 695 002. 27 VIJAYAN NAIR, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. APPUKUTTAN, PROPRIETOR, ASWATHY CABLE NET WORK , EDAGRAMOM, KARUMOM, TRIVANDRUM 695 002. 28 DISH AND VIDEO NET WORK , 37 /1262, SANKAR NIVAS, SOUTH RAMPART, STREET ROAD, TRIVADNRUM, 695 008. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, RAMACHANDRAN.H. BY ADVS. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (KANNAMPUZHA) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING, ROOM NO. 560, A- WING, SHASHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 002. 2 TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (TRAI), MAHANAGAR, DOOR SANCHAR BAHVAN, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI 11002 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 30 : 3 SITI NET WORK LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, MADHU INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, P.B. ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI 4000 18 , REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SHRI JAISHANKAR V. NAIR, CGC SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2019, ALONG WITH WA.358/2019, WA.331/2019, WA.313/2019, WA.310/2019,

WA.279/2019,

WA.278/2019,

WA.282/2019, WA.281/2019, THE COURT ON 09.04.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 31 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR TUE AY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WA.No. 358 of 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 41665/2018 of HIGH COURT APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1 SHIBU SIVANANDAN AGED 41 YEARS S/O. SHIVANANDAN, PROPRIETOR. SSA CABLE NETWORK, KADAYIL VEEDU, ANDOORKONAM P O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 584. 2 ANIL KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS S/O VIJAYAN, PROPRIETOR. JITH CABLE, MELAMCODE, NEMOM PO, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 020. W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 32 : 3 S SURESH BABU, AGED 51 YEARS S/O K. SIVANANDAN, PROPRIETOR. MAKAYIRAM CABLE NETWORK, TC 48/1071, VIKAS NAGAR, AMBALATHARA, POONTHURA PO, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 026. 4 UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS S/O GOPINATH, PROPRIETOR. NANTHANA COMMUNICATION, PLAMOODU, POTHENGODE PO, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 584. 5 RATHEESH, AGED 31 YEARS S/O SADASIVAN PILLAI, PROPRIETOR. THIRUVAMBADY CABLE NETWORK, MEENARA, PIRAPPANGODE, VENJARAMOODU P.O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 607. BY ADVS. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (KANNAMPUZHA) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING, ROOM.NO.560, A-WING, SHASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 002. 2 TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (TRAI), MAHANAGAR, DOOR SANCHAR BHAVAN, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 33 : 3 SITI NET WORK LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, MADHU INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, P.B.ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI - 400 018. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SHRI.JAISHANKAR V. NAIR, CGC SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON(SR.) SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2019, ALONG WITH WA.332/2019, WA.331/2019, WA.313/2019, WA.310/2019,

WA.279/2019,

WA.278/2019,

WA.282/2019, WA.281/2019, THE COURT ON 09.04.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 34 : CASE REPORTABLE JUDGMENT P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. Interference declined by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions filed against some of the provisions of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable)

Services

Inter

Connection(Addressable Systems)Regulations, 2017, providing for 'revenue sharing' between the Multi System Operator (MSO in short)and Local Cable Operator (LCO in short) and fixing a default revenue sharing ratio of “55:45” in the case of pay channels, if no Model Interconnection Agreement (MIA) is reached in between, thus giving effect to the terms of Standard Interconnection Agreement (SIA) is questioned in these appeals.

The challenge against the Regulations is mainly based on the contention that the second

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 35 : respondent/TRAI does not have any power to fix the Tariff as to the revenue sharing between the MSOs and LCOs; more so since the relevant provisions say that it has to be on the basis of mutual agreement. If the parties fail to enter into a mutual agreement, SIA is to be followed, which stipulates the ratio as aforesaid, that is always beneficial to the MSOs who consciously avoid negotiation to arrive at a mutual agreement, as the existing ratio of “12%:88%” stands increased by several folds, thus making the default clause better in terms. By virtue of the default clause, the bargaining power of the LCOs to arrive at a contract on free will as to the revenue sharing is taken away and undue benefits have been conferred upon the MSOs with unconscionable bargaining power. It is also pointed out that the learned Single Judge is not correct in relegating the appellants/petitioners to move the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) for redressal of the grievances, as

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 36 : the constitutional validity of the Regulations cannot be considered or adjudicated by the Tribunal, for want of authority/power/juri iction.

The pleadings and proceedings are referred to as given in W.A.No.278 OF 2019, except where reference is made separately, based on the context. The basic judgment was rendered by the learned single Judge in W.P(C)No.6681 of 2018 ( which is under challenge in W.A.NO.278 of 2019), which came to be followed in the connected cases, declining interference, in turn, giving rise to the appeals concerned.

Heard Mr. M.A.Abdul Hakhim, the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Jaishankar V. Nair, the learned Central Government Counsel for Union of India and TRAI and Shri P. Gopinath Menon, the learned Sr. Counsel for the the Multi System Operator/the third respondent.

To understand the scope of the dispute, it may be better to have an idea as to the topography of

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 37 : the field. Earlier, almost upto 1992, the system followed for transmission of signals was 'Analogous system' whereby a bunch of channels were being provided for a lump sum. Later, in the year 2003, the first respondent brought about 'Conditional Access System' (CAS), introducing Set Top Box. By virtue of this, the distribution of 'pay channels' was sought to be governed by a Set Top Box, whereas 'free channels' were available even without a Set Top box. By the passage of time, 'Digital Addressable System' (DAS) was introduced in almost all parts of the country, whereby 'Free to Air' Channels as well as 'Pay Channels' were made available through the Set Top Box. As on date it is stated that a new system is being introduced under the name and style as OTT (Over the Top) where the service is rendered without cable through internet. 'Portability' is also stated as being introduced whereby the customer is stated as the king and option is given to change the service

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 38 : provider, if the service rendered is not of the optimum quality or the customer is having any dissatisfaction either with the quality or rate or with such other service.

The appellant Association claims to be representing as many as 62 different Local Cable Operators functioning in the State of Kerala. The said Association filed writ petitions to protect the interest of its memebrs, who were aggrieved of the 'second proviso' to Regulation No.12(3), proviso to Regulation 12(7), Clause 11 providing that billing for subscribers shall be in the name of MSOs and the ratio of 55:45 specified in Claue 12.1 of the SIA ( Standard Interconnection Agreement) in Schedule VI of the Telelcommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Inter Connection(Addressable Systems)Regulations, 2017 issued by the second respondent/TRAI, by which a default revenue sharing ratio between the MSOs and LCOs was introduced, in case the parties failed to

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 39 : Nath Ganguly and another[(1986)3 SCC 156]to contend and others [(2007)8 SCC 1] (paragraph 36]is sought to be pressed into service to contend that there is a need for providing level playing field. It is further contended that the State action shall always be transparent and that there cannot be any action like “take or leave”, as held in Hindustan Times and others

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 40 : vs. State of U.P. and another [(2003)1 SCC 591 (paragraph 39). The learned counsel for the appellants submits that freedom to contract is a common law civil liberty enjoyed by all persons and hence it cannot be tinkered down, compelling the appellants/LCOs to agree for the revenue sharing ratio of 55:45 (as per the default clause) or to leave the field. Reliance

is sought to be placed on paragraph 12 of the decision in M.P. Mathur and others vs. DTC and others[(2006)13 SCC 706].

The 3rd respondent contends that, as per the law 41,42 to 49), in matters involving economic business/ commercial interest, it is not for the Court to substitute its views and that these matters are always subject to trial and error method. There cannot be any interference by the Court in subordinate legislation as a matter of course and 'presumption of

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 41 : constitutionality' is always there and it has to be Krishnamurthy and others [(2006)4 SCC 517 (paragraph 15). It is further brought to the notice of this Court that the bargaining power is still with the LCOs, as there are different MSOs available in the same place and LCOs can opt- whose service is to be availed by them. Installation of the relevant Set Top Box may not be a problem for the LCOs as no financial burden is mulcted on them in this regard. It is also stated that there are 6 or 7 MSOs in Kerala and they will effect the supply of signals at the LCO's hub. In some area, one LCO may be giving subscription of two or more/different MSOs. It is also pointed out that the appellants/writ petitioners have not chosen to challenge Section 11 of the TRAI Act, in particular Section(1)(b)(ii) and (iv).

The genesis of the case springs up from

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 42 : 25.03.1995

when

the Cable

Television Networks(Regulation)Act, 1995 was enacted, followed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997(TRAI Act for short) which was introduced on 28.03.1997. On 24.01.2000, a proviso was added to Section 2(1)(k) of the TRAI Act, enabling the Central Government to notify other services including the Broadcasting services, to be 'telecommunication service'. By virtue of the very same amendment, Chapter IV was inserted in the TRAI Act for establishment of Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT for short).

On 09.01.2004, a notification was issued by the Central Government bringing the Broadcasting Services also within the purview of the definition of 'Telecommunication Service', by virtue of which, the TRAI Act came to be applicable to the Cable T.V. Operators as well. Shortly thereafter, the Telecommunication

(Broadcasting

and Cable

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 43 : Services)Interconection Regulations 2004 were issued by the TRAI on 10.12.2004. A new set of Regulations named as Telecommunication (Broadcasing and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) Regulations, 2012 was introduced by the TRAI on 30.04.2012. A notification was issued by the TRAI, inserting proviso to Clause 5 of the relevant Tariff Order, 2010 by including the default revenue sharing ratio of 55:45 to Free to Air channels and a ratio of 65:35 to the other channels. Though this was included in the Tariff Order, it was not finding a place in the Regulations and hence it was not enforced for the time being. It was much later, in 2016, that the new Regulations were introduced, amending 2012 Regulations and introducing 'SIA' and 'MIA' along with default revenue Sharing ratio of 55:45 (to Free to Air Channels) and 65:35 (to other channels) between the MSOs and LCOs. This made the Local Cable Operators (represented by the appellant)to

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 44 : feel aggrieved, who sought to challenge the same by filing W.P.(C)No.21901 of 2016, virtually challenging the disputed provisions in 2016 Regulations and those in the Tariff Order, 2010. Based on the interim order of status quo, the existing ratio was being maintained, which provided for payment of a sum of Rs.25 to 30/- per cable connection to the MSOs (out of the total collection of Rs.200 to 250/- )by the LCOs from the customers. This virtually amounted to a revenue sharing of 12%:88% between the MSOs and LCOs.

10.

While so, the second respondent introduced a new set of Regulations and Tariff Order in the year 2017, repealing the earlier ones. Ext.P6 Regulations of 2017 repealed the earlier 2004 and 2012 Regulations and introduced new 'MIA' and 'SIA' with default revenue sharing ratio of 55:45 between MSOs and LCOs. The appellant was constrained to move this Court again by filing W.P.(C) No.6681 of 2018, challenging the objectionable

provisions

of the 2017

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 45 : Regulations/Tariff Order. By virtue of the interim order of status quo, the appellant was enjoying the revenue sharing ratio as it existed earlier.

11.

After completion of the pleadings, both the sides were heard in detail and the learned single Judge, placing reliance on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Star India Private Limited vs. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion [2018 (14)SCALE 651 (SC)], held that the challenge against the Regulations was not liable to be sustained. However, with regard to the contentions of the writ petitioners that by virtue of the default clause, the cunning MSOs were not turning up to negotiate and to enter into an MIA, but were opting to fall back upon the SIA, which was more beneficial to them, it was held that, it remained to be a matter of dispute which could be adjudicated by the TDSAT. It was accordingly, that the writ petitioners/LCOs were relegated to move the TDSAT, in turn dismissing the

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 46 : writ petitions. Hence these appeals.

12.

Mr. Abdul Hakhim, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that, despite the interim order of 'status quo' passed by the learned single Judge, the third respondent/MSO disconnected the signals, causing much annoyance and anguish to the end customers, besides the huge loss caused to the appellants. The appellants were constrained to file Contempt of Court proceedings against the third respondent. However, in the meanwhile, particularly, the threat to the law and order situation, the threat to the lives and limbs of the petitioners-operators/their management and staff, the appellants were made to yield to the unlawful demands made by the third respondent. They were pressurised to execute Ext.P18 agreement, which allegedly was not executed on free will with consensus ad idem, but on coersion and hence not liable to be acted upon. The connections have been restored, but

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 47 : the appellants have been taken to task and the grievance continues. It is however conceded that the payment as per Ext.P18 is still to be honoured by the appellants.

13.

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that Section 14 of the TRAI Act, which confers power upon the TDSAT, does not envisage any power to consider the constitutional vires of the Regulations. Though in the opening paragraph of the judgment passed by the learned single Judge, the prayer portion is extracted, we find that it might be a typing error, as what is extracted is the “interim relief” sought for in the writ petition. The main reliefs sought for are in the following terms: “(a) issue a writ of certiorari, such other writ, order or direction setting aside the following provisions in Ext.P6 [the Telecommunication (Broadcasing and Cable)ServicesInter Connection(Addressable systems)Regulations, 2017]:

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 48 :

the Second proviso to Regulation 12(3) 2. the proviso to Regulation 12(7)

Clause 11 in “Standard Interconnection Agreement” in Schedule VI. 4. the ratio of 55:45 specified in Clause 12.1 in “Standard Interconnection

Agreement”in Schedule VI. (b) Declare that following provisions

in Ext.P6[the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Inter Connection (Addressable

Systems)Regulations, 2017]

are illegal,

void

and unconstitutional 1. the Second proviso to Regulation 12(3) 2. the proviso to Regulation 12(7)

Clause 11 in “Standard Interconnection Agreement” in Schedule VI. 4. the ratio of 55:45 specified in Clause 12.1 in “Standard Interconnection

Agreement”in

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 49 : Schedule VI.

AND (c) pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court shall deem just.”

14.

Coming to the scope and power of the TDSAT, Section 14 of the TRAI Act reads as follows:

“14. Establishment of Appellate Tribunal:- The Central Government shall, by notification, establish an Appellate Tribunal to be known as the Telecom Disputes

Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to - (a) adjudicate any dispute- (i) between a licensor and a licensee; (ii) between two or more service providers; (iii) between a service provider and a group of consumers; Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply in respect of matters relating to - (A) the monopolistic trade practice, restrictive trade practice and unfair trade practice which are subject to the juri iction of the Monopolies and

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 50 : Restrictive Trade Practices Commission established under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (54 of 1969).” others [2014(3)SCC 222]. The question considered by the Apex Court, as dealt with in paragraph 3 is as follows:

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 51 : “Whether in exercise of the power vested in it under Sec.14(b) of the Act, TDSAT has the juri iction to entertain challenge to the regulations framed by the Authority under S.36 of the Act.”

16.

This has been adverted to in paragraph 101 as well, observing that the question framed by the Court was whether the TDSAT has the juri iction to entertain challenge to the regulations framed by the Authority (TRAI). The said question has been answered by the Apex Court in paragraphs 124 and 125 in the following lines: 124. In the result, the question framed by the Court is answered in the following terms: In exercise of the power vested in it under Section 14(b) of the Act, TDSAT does not have the juri iction to entertain the challenge to the regulations framed by the Authority under S.36 of the Act.

125.

As a corollary, we hold that the contrary view taken by TDSAT and the Delhi High Court does not represent correct law. At the same time, we make it clear that the aggrieved person shall be free to challenge the validity of

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 52 : Promotion [2018 (14)SCALE 651 (SC)]. In the said circumstance, the learned single Judge held that the

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 53 : Industrial Policy and Promotion [2018 (14)SCALE 651 (SC)], which are extracted below, for convenience of reference:

“30. We are of the view that the provisions of the TRAI Act have to be viewed in the light of protection of

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 54 : the interests of both service providers and consumers. This being so, it is clear that no constricted meaning can be given to the provisions of this Act. It is important to remember that Under Section 11(1)(a) (iv), one of the functions of the Authority, though recommendatory, is to facilitate competition and promote efficiency in the operation of telecommunication

services

(which includes broadcasting services) so as to facilitate growth in such services. What is also clear from Section 11(1) (b), is that terms and conditions of interconnectivity between different service providers have to be fixed, which necessarily includes terms that relate

not only

to carriage simpliciter as submitted by Dr. Singhvi, but to all terms and conditions

of interconnectivity between broadcaster, MSO, Cable TV operator and the ultimate consumer, so as to ensure that the object of the Act is carried out, namely, that both broadcasters and consumers get a fair deal. Towards this end, Section 11(2)

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 55 : makes it clear that the Authority may, from time to time, notify the rates at which telecommunication

services, including

broadcasting

services, within India and outside India, shall be provided under this Act. Dr. Singhvi argued that the literal language of this Sub-section, which would undoubtedly bring in rates laid down in the Tariff Order, would have to be constricted by the language of the last part of the provision, viz., "including the rates at which messages shall be transmitted to any country outside India". We are afraid that this is against basic canons of construction, as the expression "including" would only refer to a part of what precedes the expression and cannot therefore constrict the part that has gone before. The plain literal language of Section 11(2) makes it clear that rates at which broadcasting services are offered within and outside India can be fixed by TRAI. It is clear therefore that when rates are fixed after several rounds of consultations between

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 56 : various

service

providers

and consumers, looking to the interest of each, it is impossible to say that any broadcaster's

rights

have been impinged upon. Shri Dwivedi is absolutely right in saying that at no stage is content of a TV channel sought to be regulated, and that pricing relating to TV channels laid down in the Regulation and Tariff Order is a balancing act between the rights of broadcasters and the interests of consumers, which we may hasten to add has not been impugned on the ground that any right or fundamental right is violated, but only on the ground that the Regulation as well as the Tariff Order are outside the "juri iction" of TRAI. Dr. Singhvi's argument on this score must therefore fail. xx xx xx xx

37.

It can thus be seen that both the Regulation as well as the Tariff Order have been the subject matter of extensive discussions between TRAI, all stake holders and consumers, pursuant to which most of the

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 57 : suggestions given by the broadcasters themselves have been accepted and incorporated into the Regulation and the Tariff Order. The Explanatory Memorandum shows that the focus of the Authority has always been the provision of a level playing field to both broadcaster and subscriber. For example, when high discounts are offered for bouquets that are offered by the broadcasters, the effect is that subscribers are forced to take bouquets only, as the a-la-carte rates of the pay channels that are found in these bouquets are much higher. This results in perverse pricing of bouquets vis-a-vis individual pay channels. In the process, the public ends up paying for unwanted channels, thereby blocking newer and better TV channels and restricting subscribers' choice. It is for this reason that discounts are capped. While doing so, however, full flexibility has been given to broadcasters to declare the prices of their pay channels on an a- la-carte basis. The Authority has shown that it does not encroach upon

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 58 : the freedom of broadcasters to arrange their business as they choose. Also, when such discounts are limited, a subscriber can then be free to choose a-la-carte channels of his choice. Thus, the flexibility of formation of a bouquet, i.e., the choice of channels to be included in the bouquet together with the content of such channels, is not touched by the Authority. It is only efforts aimed at thwarting competition and reducing a- la-carte choice that are, therefore, being interfered with. Equally, when a ceiling of INR 19 on the maximum retail price of pay channels which can be provided as a part of a bouquet is fixed

by the Authority,

the Authority's focus is to be fair to both the subscribers as well as the broadcasters. INR 19 is an improvement over the erstwhile ceiling of INR 15.12 fixed by the earlier Regulation which nobody has challenged. To maintain the balance between the subscribers'

interests

and broadcasters' interests, again the Authority makes it clear that

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 59 : broadcasters have complete freedom to price channels which do not form part of any bouquet and are offered only on an a-la-carte basis. As market regulator, the Authority states that the impugned Regulation and Tariff Order are not written in stone but will be reviewed keeping a watch on the developments in the market. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the Regulation and the Tariff Order have been made keeping the interests of the stakeholders and the consumers in mind and are intra vires the Regulation power contained in Section 36 of the TRAI Act. Consequently, we agree with the conclusion of the learned Chief Justice and the third learned Judge of the Madras High Court that these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.”

19.

Paragraph 37 of the verdict rendered by the Apex Court specifically refers to the Regulations as well as the Tariff Order. Extensive discussions have been made with regard to the TRAI, the stakeholders

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 60 : and consumers. In paragraph 9, the learned single Judge has observed that fixation of ceiling prices of pay channels by the TRAI as the Market Regulator had been considered in extenso by the Apex Court and it was held that it was well within the power of the TRAI, as provided under Section 36 of the TRAI Act. It was thereafter, that the plea with reference to the loss of bargainig power to the LCOs, by virtue of the 'default clause/fall back clause', giving advantage to the MSOs was adverted to in paragraph 10 and 11; at the same time reiterating in paragraph 11 that the Apex Court in Star India Private Limited vs. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion [2018 (14)SCALE 651 (SC)] had specifically held that the TRAI had to exercise juri iction not only to fix tariff but also to lay down the terms and conditions for providing services and fix norms and the mode and manner in which the consumer would get services. The function discharged by the TRAI(who is the market

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 61 : regulator), issuing Regulations and Tariff Orders, keeping the interest of the stakeholders and consumers in mind, invoking the power under Section 36 of the TRAI Act was adverted to and it was observed that the Regulations issued were quite intra vires. It was observed by the learned single Judge in paragraph 12, that the essential grievance of the petitioner appeared to be that the MSOs could refuse to enter into a proper negotiation and that in the absence of an agreement between the parties as to revenue sharing, the default ratio would become applicable. It was accordingly held that, in case any individual dispute arose with regard to the refusal of the MSO to hold negotiations or enter into a revenue sharing agreement, only to defeat the rights of the LCO and to make the default revenue sharing ratio applicable, the same would constitute a dispute between the two service providers, which could be considered by the TDSAT in terms of Section 14 of the TRAI Act, 1997. W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 62 : 20. From the above, it is quite clear that the right reserved to the appellant to approach the TDSAT, was not to challenge the vires of the Regulations or the Tariff order, but to raise a challenge against the unlawful designs or callous inaction, if any, on the part of the MSOs in not responding to the call of the LCOs to negotiate and arrive at a mutual settlement/agreement. Since a clear finding was rendered that the challenge as to the vires of Ext.P6 Regulations was not correct or sustainable in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Star India's case (cited supra), the course pursued by the learned Single Judge cannot be branded as defective in any manner. Then, the question is whether the finding that the issue is covered by the verdict of the Apex Court in Star India's case (cited supra) is correct or not.

21.

As put forth by the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 63 : learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the third respondent/MSO, the channels were being offered as a bouquet earlier, without any regard to the need or desire of the customer, who was paying for channels in which he was having absolutely no interest at all. By virtue of the change in the concept, starting to treat consumer as the King, the first and second respondents intervened, finding it necessary to provide a level playing field for all the stake holders and to protect minimum returns to the LCOs.

22.

On payment of the network fee of Rs.153.40(including GST), a minimum of 100 channels will have to be provided, among which 26 channels of Dooradarshan are definitely to be there. The channels can be opted by the customer and all these 100 channels are 'Free to Air' Channels. Once the above 100 channels are chosen, additional charges have to be paid in respect of the 'Pay Channels' as per the requirement and the stipulations in this regard. All

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 64 : the signals come to the Set Top box in an encrypted form. By virtue of the software provided in the Set Top box, option of the subscriber is identified and entry is provided to the opted channels.

23.

It is pointed out that the question of pricing was a subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court in Star India's case. It is true that the case filed before the Supreme Court was by the Broadcaster against an MSO and not between an MSO and LCO. But the power and authority with regard to fixation of Tariff was also a subject matter of consideration and it was in this context as well, that the relevant provisions in the very same Regulations (Ext.P6 Regulations) were considered and discussed by the Apex court, finally declaring the law. This being the position, this Court finds that the power of the TRAI to frame Regulations and to fix the Tariff, being the market Regulator, was asserted by the Apex Court. The TRAI was also conscious to see that, if at all

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 65 : there was any dispute between the Broadcaster and MSOs (as in the case of MSO and LCO), the ultimate sufferer will be the end customer i.e. the general public, if the dispute went on indefinitely and the signals got interrupted. It was in the said context, that the concept of 'Standard Interconnection Agreement' was introduced, with a default revenue sharing ratio clause; at the same time, highlighting the liberty of the parties to enter into a free contract as to the revenue sharing basis.

24.

The contention of the appellants that, by virtue of the introduction of the disputed clauses/provisos, the bargaining power of the LCOs is lost, if the MSOs show least interest in executing an MIA and indirectly wants to give life to the 'fall back clause/default clause' (bringing in the SIA), may appear to be attractive at the first sight. This, however, is a matter which could be considered by the Tribunal (TDSAT) in exercise of the power conferred

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 66 : under Section 14 of the Act. The revenue sharing ratio in the case of a particular LCO need not be the same as in the case of others and variation may be necessary, depending upon the various facts and circumstances. The operational cost and profit to be generated in the case of an LCO having 1000 connections may not be the same as in the case of another LCO having 5000 connections. As such, the rate of revenue sharing to be agreed upon between the MSO and LCO may vary. It is stated that the proceedings were finalised by the TRAI after issuing draft Regulations inviting objections, hearing the various stake holders and it was thereafter, that Ext.P6 Regulations/Tariff were finalised. The TRAI being the regulator of the market and an expert body, fixation of the ratio as given in the default clause cannot be subjected to scrutiny by this Court, as the Court cannot be expected to have any expertise in this field, nor is equipped with the data to have had such

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 67 : and Promotion [2018(14)SCALE 651 (SC)]. The purpose of relegation was only with regard to the alleged unconscionable bargain/rationale in fixation of the revenue sharing ratio and also as to the alleged lack of earnest step on the part of the MSOs to negotiate and to arrive at an agreement in terms of the MIA, virtually falling back upon the SIA (providing for ratio of 55:45) by virtue of the default clause.

26.

The crucial question to be considered is

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 68 : whether there is any pith or substance in the contentions raised by the appellants that the TRAI does not have any power to fix the rates of revenue sharing between different service providers. According to the petitioners, no such power is conferred under the Statute and this aspect has not been dealt with by the Apex Court in Star India Private Limited vs. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion [2018 (14)SCALE 651 (SC)

] and hence it cannot be said that the issue is covered by the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Star India Private Limited vs. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion [2018 (14)SCALE 651 (SC)].

27.

Sec.11(1)(b)(ii)& (iv) of the TRAI Act reads as follows:

“11. Functions of Authority:(`1)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Telegraph Ac, 1885 (13 of 1885), the functions of the Authority shall be to: (a xx xx xx (b) discharge the following functions, namely xx xx xx (ii) notwithstanding anything contained in the terms and

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 69 : conditions of the licence granted before the commencement of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Amendment)Act, 2000, fix the terms and conditions of inter-connectivity between the service providers: xx xx xx (iv) regulate arrangement amongst service providers of sharing their revenue derived from providing telecommunication services.” The term “Service provider” defined under Section 2(j) of the Act, is extracted below: “(j) “Service provider” means the Government as a service provider. Section 2(j) though states that it means the Government, it is qualified by the following words “the Government as a service provider” and that it includes a licensee. The term “Licensee” is defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the TRAI Act, which says that “Licensee” means any person licensed under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885)

for providing

specified

public telecommunication services. Regulation No.2(kk) [2017 Regulations-The Telecommunication (Broadcasting and

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 70 : Cable)

Services

Inter

Connection(Addressable Systems)Regulations, 2017] defines the term “service provider” in a wider sense. As it stands so, it is [2018 (14)SCALE 651 (SC)]. The contention of the appellant is that it was not so. The provisions under challenge and the grounds of challenge are seen extracted in 'paragraph 19' of the said verdict. We find it appopriate to extract the said paragraph along with the table given therein for

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 71 : convenience of reference:

19.

In the judgment of Sundar, J., in the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, a useful table is set out which not only states the provisions that have been challenged, but the specific ground on which they have been challenged. We, therefore, reproduce this table in our judgment: Provisions of the Interconnection Regulation which Regulate content Sl. No. Provision Ground 1 6(1) All channels (pay channels and free-to- air channels) to be offered

on a-la-carte basis. Impinges upon broadcaster's ability to package a TV channel. No such restriction on broadcaster

under Copyright Act. 2 Second proviso to 6(1) -Bouquet of pay channels shall not have free-to-air channels. -HD and variant of same channel cannot be in same bouquet.

Impinges upon broadcaster's ability to package a TV channel. No such restriction on broadcaster under Copyright Act.

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 72 : 3 Proviso to 7(2)- Bundling of third party channels prohibited. Impinges upon broadcaster's ability to package a TV channel. No such restriction on broadcaster under Copyright

Act.

4 7(4)-Broadcaster can offer discounts to distributor

not exceeding 15% of MRP. Directly regulates the pricing of a TV channel, thereby also regulating pricing of individual programmes.

5 First proviso to 7(4)- Sum of discount under 7(4) and distribution fee under 7(3) shall not exceed 35% of MRP. Directly regulates the pricing of a TV channel, thereby also regulating pricing of individual programmes.

6 10(3) r/w 6(1)- Mandatory to enter into agreement with DPO on an a-la-carte basis for pay channels.

Impinges upon broadcaster's freedom to offer pay channels only as a part of bouquet and not as a-la-carte. No such restriction on broadcaster under Copyright Act. 7 11(2)-Deemed extension of geographical territory. Directly impinges the broadcaster's right under 19(2) to designate the geographical territory of exploitation.

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 73 :

Provisions of Tariff Order which regulate content Sl. No. Provision Ground 1 3(1)-All channels to be offered on a-la-carte basis

Impinges upon broadcaster's ability to package a TV channel. No such restriction on broadcaster under Copyright Act. 2 3(2)(b)-Declaration of MRP of a-la-carte channel Impinges upon broadcaster's freedom to offer pay channels only as a part of bouquet and not as a-la-carte. No such restriction on broadcaster under Copyright Act.

3 Second proviso to 3(2) (b)-MRP of all pay channels

to be uniform

across distribution platforms. Under Section 33A read with Rule 56 of the Copyright Rules, 2013, broadcaster has the right to decide separate MRP for different category of audience.

4 First proviso to 3(3)- Bundling of third party channels prohibited.

Impinges upon broadcaster's ability to package a TV channel. For example, third party channels cannot be part of the same bouquet. No such restriction

on broadcaster under Copyright Act.

5 Second proviso to 3(3)-MRP of pay channel in bouquet not to exceed INR 19/- Directly regulates the pricing of a TV channel, thereby also regulating pricing

of individual programmes.

W.A. No.278, 279, 281, 282, 310, 313, 331, 332 & 358 OF 2019 : 74 : 6 Third proviso to 3(3)- Bouquet price shall not be less than 85% of the sum of a-la-carte prices of individual channels

in the bouquet. Directly regulates the pricing of a TV channel, thereby also regulating pricing of individual programmes.

7 Fourth proviso to 3(3)-MRP of all bouquets to be uniform across

distribution platforms. Under Rule 56 of the Copyright Rules, 2013, broadcaster has the right to decide separate MRP for different