Delhi High Court
T.V. Today Network Ltd. vs Union Of India & Anr on 25 May, 2017
$~44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 25.05.2017
+ W.P.(C) 4329/2017
T.V. TODAY NETWORK LTD. ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate and Mr. A.J. Bambhani, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Prasouk Jain, Mr. Kunal Kanungo, Ms. Avani Bansal,
Mr.Karan Sinha and Ms. Madhvi Gupta, Advocates with Dr. Puneet
Jain, AR of petitioner in person
For the Respondents : Mr. Anurag Alhuwalia, CGSC with Mr. Rakshith Srivastava,
Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Kirtimaan Singh, CGSC with Mr. Vikramaditya Singh,
Mr. Prateek Dhanda and Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Advocates for
respondent No.2.
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Chandrima Mitra,
Ms. Manasi Vyas, Ms. Hemangini Mehta, Advocates for the
respondent No.3.
Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vibhav Srivastava,
Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Ms. Mrinal Ojha, Mr. Debarshi Dutta,
Ms. Priya Puri, Mr. Tushar Bhardwaj, Ms. Shifa Nagar and
Mr. Swatantra Rai, Advocates for respondent No.4.
WP(C) 4329/2017 Page 1 of 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
25.05.2017
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, by the present petition, inter alia, seeks a
direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to ensure that broadcasters, T.V.
Channels and distributors comply with the TRAI Regulations.
Further, directions is sought to prohibit respondent No.3 - BARC,
from releasing the TRP rating of any channel not in compliance with
the TRAI regulations.
2. The petition is premised on the ground that the respondent No.4
Channel is allegedly appearing on two Logical Channel Numbers in
two different genres. It is the contention of the petitioner that no
channel can be broadcast in two different genres as the broadcaster
has to declare the genre in which the channel is to be placed by the
Distribution Platform Operator (DPO).
3. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents oppose the very
issuance of notice and contend that the petition is not maintainable.
4. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.4 denies the
allegations made in the petition qua respondent No. 4. He, however,
without prejudice, states that respondent No.4 has only declared its
channel in the genre "news and current affairs". He states that
respondent No.4 has not declared the channel in multiple genres.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the TRAI submits that
complaints have been received with regard to the allegations
contained in this petition and the matter is under investigation. He
further submits that the other complaints have also been received with
regard to other channels, including the petitioner and the matter is
under investigation.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, under instructions,
submits that even the petitioner has declared its channel only in "news
and current affairs" genre and not in multiple genres.
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of
the statement of respondent No.4 that the respondent No.4 has
declared the channel only in "news and current affairs" genre, the
petitioner does not wish to press the present petition and reserves his
right to take remedies before the TRAI or other appropriate forum in
accordance with law.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn.
9. It is clarified that this Court has neither examined nor opined
on the contentions of either the petitioner or the respondents and the
issue of maintainability has not been gone into.
10. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 25, 2017/'St'
