Entertainment Network (India) ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 362 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. Ten writ petitions were filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying to set aside two orders passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (for short hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 17.11.2004 and 14.1.2005.

2. So far as LPA Nos. 464/05, 466/05 and 467/05 are concerned, learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated that in view of the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge in later part of the order about the maintainability, the matter was not required to be agitated on merits. It may be noted that a common question was raised in all the petitions and counsel argued the matter on merits and therefore learned single Judge was required to decide on the merits. However the learned single made a specific reference to this in paragraph 32, which is reproduced below:

"In the view of my conclusions in the preceding paragraphs I am of the opinion that the present petition cannot be entertained. However, it is clarified that none of the observations contained in this judgment shall be construed as an expression on merits either as far as the Government or as far as the TDSAT is concerned, nor conclude the issues. It is open to the petitioners to move an appropriate petition or application before the TDSAT in regard to any of the issues, including the prayer for a direction to the Government. Any application made by the petitioners would be dealt with in accordance with law on its own merits."

2.1 Thus the learned Single Judge took care to protect the interest of the petitioners and, therefore, it goes without saying that the matters are required to be decided strictly on merits by the Authorities before whom the matter is pending without being influenced by the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

3. Insofar as the other LPAs are concerned, initially, the Tribunal was moved for two prayers which are reproduced as follows:

(A) Allow the present application and review/modify the order dated 17.11.2004 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the abovementioned petition to the extent that the time period for payment of the 1/3rd of the license fee be extended till the time the Government takes the final decision on the final recommendations made by the TRAI dated 11.8.2004 and 19.11.2004; and

(B) Direct the respondent to immediately decide/take decision on the final recommendations passed by learned TRAI on 11.8.2004 and 19.11.2004;

4. So far as prayer A is concerned, it is stated that the amount has been paid, as directed by the Tribunal. Therefore, insistence is with regard to prayer B. So far as this aspect is concerned, we have to refer to the specific order made by the Tribunal dated 2 February 2005. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:

"Today we are told that the recommendations by TRAI after reconsideration were sent to the Central Government on 24 November 2004 and till this date, no decision has been taken by the Government on that. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General says that he would take instructions and inform us on the next date as to when Government would be in a position to give its final view on the recommendations of the TRAI. He says various Ministries have to be consulted and he wants two-months time for the purpose.

With the consent of the parties, we adjourn this matter to 16 March 2005 (On 16 March 2005, the hearing on the petition filed by the group of FM radio broadcasters, including Radio Today Broadcasting, Music Broadcast Pvt Ltd and Entertainment Network, all of whom run FM stations in various cities under the brand name Red FM, Radio City and Radio Mirchi, respectively, was adjourned by Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to 26 April 2005. On 26 April 1005, TDSAT directed the Government [viz., the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting] to firm up its views on radio broadcast policy by 4 July. In the interim, status quo prevails-Editor) for hearing. Before this date, learned Additional Solicitor General says that it will be possible in inform the Tribunal and the parties as well as to whether the recommendations of TRAI have been accepted or otherwise."

5. Thus in view of this, it is very clear that the Government is examining the matter and as requested by the parties, matter has been adjourned to 16 March 2005. It is informed that before that date the Tribunal will be informed about the final decision taken by the Government. If before the given date, decision is not informed to the Tribunal it will be for the Tribunal to issue appropriate directions and not for this court. In this view of the matter, these appeals are not required to be entertained.

6. Hence the petitions stand disposed of.