Bizni Cable Tv And Broadcasting ... vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 19538 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
  FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA,
                           1943
                  WP(C) NO. 18308 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

    1     BIZNI CABLE TV AND BROADCASTING CENTRE
          XVI 486, PEERMADE, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN,
          REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR P.C. KUTTAPPAN, AGED
          71 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRAN, PARAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
          KUTTIKKANAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685531.
    2     BISNI, D/O. KUTTAPPAN,
          AGED 40 YEARS, MANAGER,
          M/S. BIZNI CABLE TV AND BROADCASTING CENTRE,
          XVI PEERMADE, RESIDING AT PARAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
          KUTTIKKANAM, IDUKKI - 685531.
          BY ADVS.
          C.S.MANILAL
          S.NIDHEESH
          ACHUT M NAIR


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     UNION OF INDIA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
          INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING, A WING 6TH
          FLOOR, SHASTHRIBHAVAN, RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
          NEW DELHI - 110001.
    2     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          IDUKKI, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU,
          IDUKKI - 685603.
    3     IDUKKI VISION CABLE NETWORK,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ROY JOSEPH,
          KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685508.
 W.P.(C) No.18308 of 2021              ..2..




     4          JOJEN C KURUVILA,
                CHEERAKALAYIL, PAMPANAR, KALLAR,
                IDUKKI - 685531, LINK OPERATOR, IDUKKI VISION
                CABLE NETWORK, (I-VISION DIGITAL LLP),
                KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI - 695508.
     5          MICHEAL RAJ
                S/O. MANI, KARIYARVILA, ELAPPARABONAM, LINK
                OPERATOR, IDUKKI VISION CABLE NETWORK,
                (I-VISION DIGITAL LLP), KATTAPPANA,
                IDUKKI - 695508.
     6          ALEX, S/O. ANTHEPPAN, PADIPPARAMPIL HOUSE,
                PALLIKUNNU, LINK OPERATOR, IDUKKI VISION CABLE
                NETWORK, (I-VISION DIGITAL LLP), KATTAPPANA,
                IDUKKI - 695508.
     7          NAVIN @ NAVIN G THAMPI
                S/O. THAMPI, GURUMANNIRAM HOUSE, ELAPPARA, LINK
                OPERATOR, IDUKKI VISION CABLE NETWORK,
                (I-VISION DIGITAL LLP), KATTAPPANA,
                IDUKKI - 695508.
     8          KALA @ KALAISELVAM,
                S/O. NADARAJAN, GITTABHAVAN, MANCHUMALA,
                VANDIPERIYAR , LINK OPERATOR, IDUKKI VISION
                CABLE NETWORK, (I-VISION DIGITAL LLP),
                KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI - 695508.



                BY SMT.VINITHA B, SR.GP



         THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)      HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION        ON   17.09.2021,   THE       COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.18308 of 2021              ..3..




                    W.P.(C)No.18308 of 2021
          -------------------------------------------------------


                           JUDGMENT

The first petitioner has lodged a complaint against

respondents 3 to 8 before the Ministry of Information and

Broad casting, Government of India. The complaint of the first

petitioner was one falling within the scope of the Cable

Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (the Act). In terms

of Ext.P6 communication, the competent authority of the

Central Government has forwarded the complaint of the first

petitioner to the second respondent, the authorised officer in

terms of the Act for appropriate action. Pursuant to Ext.P6,

notice was issued by the second respondent to the first

petitioner for taking action on the complaint. Ext.P7 is the

notice issued in this regard. In terms of Ext.P7, the fist

petitioner was directed to appear before the second W.P.(C) No.18308 of 2021 ..4..

respondent on 07.07.2020. Since the matter could not be

taken up on 07.7.2020, the first petitioner was issued another

notice by the second respondent on 24.12.2020. Ext.P8 is the

said notice. In terms of Ext.P8, the fist petitioner was directed

to appear for a hearing on 06.01.2021. The specific case of

the petitioners is that hearing on the complaint did not take

place on 06.01.2021 and the matter was adjourned sine die.

Since no further action was taken by the second respondent

thereafter in furtherance to Ext.P6 communication of the

Central Government, the petitioners instituted W.P.(C)No.8501

of 2021, and the said writ petition was disposed of in terms of

Ext.P10 judgment directing the second respondent to conclude

the proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P6 communication

within a period of three months. Ext.P10 judgment was

rendered on 31.3.2021. It is alleged by the petitioners that

since the direction in Ext.P10 judgment has not been complied

with, they initiated proceedings under the Contempt of Courts

Act against the second respondent and immediately on W.P.(C) No.18308 of 2021 ..5..

initiation of the said proceedings, the second respondent

rejected the complaint of the first petitioner in terms of Ext.P11

order. Ext.P11 order is under challenge in the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

as also the learned Government Pleader.

3. A perusal of Ext.P11 order indicates that the

same is one issued on the premise that the fist petitioner was

heard in the matter on 06.01.2021. It is seen that W.P.

(C)No.8501 of 2021 was instituted by the petitioners alleging

that though the complaint of the first petitioner was listed for

hearing before the second respondent on 06.01.2021, the

complaint was not taken up on that day and the complaint is

not being taken up thereafter as well. Be that as it may, this

Court disposed of W.P.(C)No.8501 of 2021 directing the second

respondent to conclude the proceedings within three months.

Even assuming that the first petitioner was heard on the

complaint on 06.01.2021, according to me, in the light of

Ext.P10 judgment, the second respondent ought to have W.P.(C) No.18308 of 2021 ..6..

afforded the first petitioner an opportunity of hearing before

taking a final decision on the complaint. I take this view also

for the reason that it was argued by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the present incumbent in the office of the

second respondent was not the incumbent in the office of the

second respondent on 06.01.2021.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P11

order is set aside and the second respondent is directed to

comply with Ext.P6 direction of the Central Government afresh,

after affording the first petitioner an effective opportunity of

hearing. This shall be done within one month from the date of

production of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

                                 P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
rkj
 W.P.(C) No.18308 of 2021         ..7..




                  APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18308/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1             TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION

CERTIFICATE DATED 08.09.1998 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 7.10.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER VALID UPTO 6/10/2021 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS RULES, 1994.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 4.1.2019 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.

3984/2019 DATED 19.02.2020.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.06.2020.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION WP(C) 8501/2021 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS), DATED 22.3.2021.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8501/2021 DATED 31.03.2021.

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.08.2021.