Telangana High Court
M/S Rayudu Vision Media Ltd vs The Ministry Of Information And ... on 29 January, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P.No.18617 OF 2023
Between:
M/s. Rayudu Vision Media Ltd.
Rep. by its Jt. Managing Director,
Rayudu V V S
... Petitioner
And
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Rep. by the Secretary, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110001.
... Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 29.01.2024
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
2
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.No.18617 OF 2023
% 29.01.2024
Between:
# M/s. Rayudu Vision Media Ltd.
Rep. by its Jt. Managing Director,
Rayudu V V S
... Petitioner
And
$ The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Rep. by the Secretary, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110001.
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.P.Sri Ram
^ Counsel for Respondent : Mr.B.Narasimha
Sharma, Ld.Addl.
Solicitor General
of India
? Cases Referred:
(1) (2009) 12 SCC 40
(2) (2023) 6 SCC 1
(3) (1992) Supp (2) SCC page 501
(4) (2017) SCC Online Hyd 426)
(5) 2021 SCC Online SC 3422
(6) (2004) 2 SCC page 447
3
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 18617 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard the Learned Senior Designated Counsel
Mr. P.Raghuram appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
representing the Learned Counsel on Record Mr. P.Sri
Ram and the Learned Additional Solicitor General of
India Mr. B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional
Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf the
Respondent.
2. The Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as
under :
"To issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order against the
Respondent to set aside its order dated 07.07.2023,
whereby the Permission for Uplinking and Downlinking
of the News Channel of the Petitioner was revoked by
Respondent under clause 25 (1) (xii) 25 (2) and 26 (2)
of the Policy Guidelines, 2022 for Uplinking and
Downlinking of Satellite Television Channels in India,
2022 ("MIB Guidelines 2022"), in an arbitrary, high
handed and unlawful manner and by not affording
Petitioner, an opportunity of any personal hearing under
the principles of Natural justice before the Competent
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
Authority in violation of the rights of the Petitioner
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India along
with being in violation of Section 20 of the Cable
Television (Networks) Regulation Act, 1995."
3. PERUSED THE RECORD :
The relevant paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, Para 22 Clause D & G of the Counter
affidavit filed by the Respondent herein, read as under :
"12. It is further submit that, all the Show Cause
Notices and Final Cancellation order was issued with the
approval of the Competent Authority in the Ministry as
applicable in case to case basis and not by the Under
Secretary alone as alleged by the petitioner. The
competent authority has carefully perused the
submissions of the petitioner and the circumstantial
evidences on record before giving approval for
cancellation of the channel. The show cause notice
dated 26-04-2023 was issued to provide an opportunity
of being heard to the petitioner in tune with the natural
principles of justice.
13. In reply to Para No.23: It is submitted that the
central monitoring committee as mentioned by the
petitioner has been constituted under this Ministry to
look into the matter related to content violation only
and not for the violations of policy guidelines for
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
Uplinking/Downlinking. The Hon'ble Minister of
Information and Broadcasting is the competent
authority to grant permission for new TV channels and
is also the authority for revoking the permission for any
violation of policy Guidelines.
14. With regard to Para No.24: It is submitted that the
petitioner has been given plenty of opportunities though
Show Cause Notices and letters to present their views in
this regard. A table of such opportunities provided to
the company is annexed and marked as Annexure R3.
15. With regard to Para No.25: It is submitted that from
the details of the information placed by the company on
its contact us page, the owner of the TV channel is
mentioned as M/s Samhitha Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. and
not M/s Rayudu Vision Media Ltd which led to issuance
of a showcause notice. However, it is not the only
reason for which the permission of the channel was
withdrawn.
16. With regard to Para Nos.26 to 31: The company M/s
RVML was asked to furnish various documentary
evidences to substantiate that the operations,
management, network creation, techno commercial are
strictly within their domain and M/s Samhitha
Broadcasting Private Limited has no role except space
selling and air time slot filling. M/s RVML, despite
multiple opportunities, has failed to produce any
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
documentary proof to show that it is actually running
and operating the TV channel 'Prime9 News' itself and
has not contracted out the operations of the TV channel
'Prime9 News'. Even the bank statements show a
monthly credit of fixed sum received by M/s RVML for
contracting out of operations. There is no expense
incurred by the company in running the channel. Even
the payment to leased line operator has been borne by
M/s Samhitha Broadcasting Private Limited.
17. All the circumstantial evidences have been
confronted to the company and their replies taken into
consideration before arriving at the conclusion There
are atleast 7 reasons mentioned in Para 22 of the Order
dated 7.7.2023 to refute the contentions of the
company. M/s. RVML was found to have misused the
permission by authorizing or enabling or contracting out
to M/s SBPL the operations or other core
functions/activities of the channel through an explicit or
implicit agreement or arrangement i.e. through a
colorable device - Time Slot Agreement. Thus, from
16.10.2018 onwards, the company M/s RVML had been
violating Clause 11 of earlier Policy guidelines 2011 and
thereafter of Clause 32 of the Policy Guidelines, 2022.
18. It is to note that the Security clearance from MHA is
an essential condition for continuation of permission
and in the said case, M/s RVML has allowed its NEWS
channel 'Prime9 News' to be run by a non-permitted
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
and non-Security cleared entity namely M/s. SBPL. As
per the Policy Guidelines, changes in Share Holding
Pattern, appointment of Directors in the board are
required to be approved by the Ministry. Allowing a
non-permitted entity without Security Clearance to
control the operation of a News TV channel, can be a
big threat to National Security. This highlights the
malafide intention of the company M/s RVML to
circumvent the terms and conditions of the permission
granted to it for TV channel 'Prime9 News' (earlier R TV)
by designing a colourable device by the name of "Time
Slot Agreement" to contract out the operations of the
news channel to M/s SBPL.
19. I further submit that Clause 26 (2) states that The
Ministry shall have the right to suspend the permission
of a channel for a specified period or cancel its
permission in public interest or in the interest of
national security to prevent its misuse, including where
the company/LLP is found to have misused the
permission by authorizing or enabling or contracting out
to any other person the operations or other core
functions/activities of the channel through any explicit
or implicit agreement or arrangement, or there is a
substantive change in ownership of the company/LLP
leading to complete change in management and control
over the company/LLP without prior permission of the
Ministry, and the company or the LLP shall immediately
comply with such directives. Thus, enabling or
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
contracting out to any other person the operations or
other core functions/activities of the channel through
any explicit or implicit agreement or arrangement is
considered as gross violation of national security.
20. Hence, it was evident that the company has been
blatantly and continuously violating the Uplinking and
Downlinking guidelines since 16.10.2018 onwards and
therefore attracts the maximum penalty applicable,
looking into the nature and gravity of the continued
violations.
22. With regard to Para Nos.33 to 46, it is submitted
that Para 33 to 46: The contention of the company M/s
RVML does not hold ground for the following reasons:
(d) Clause 25 (4) of the Policy Guidelines for Uplinking
and Downlinking of Satellite Television Channels in
India, 2022 provides that "No penal action shall be
taken under this para, unless the company/LLP
has been given an opportunity of being heard".
However, the said clause does not necessitate the
requirement for in-person hearing.
(g) I submit that in the letters dated 19.06.2023,
23.06.2023 and 03.07.2023, the company had also
requested an opportunity of personal hearing through
their representative to clarify any further doubt in this
regard. The company was given ample opportunities to
present their stand in the matter by means of repeated
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
letters dated 18.05.2023, 14.06.2023, 20.06.2023,
26.06.2023, 27.06.2023 and Final SCN dated
06.06.2023. With reference to personal hearing
requests, it is to mention that the company failed
to provide the requisite documents repeatedly to
MIB i.e. Time Slot Agreement that expired on
16.09.2019, rental agreements, details of
employees, salary paid to such employees and
just kept on asking for personal hearing instead of
making required compliance. In lieu of personal
hearing, MIB provided repeated opportunities to
the company to submit their written
submissions."
Relevant Provisions :
25. Consequences of violation of other terms and
conditions : (1) Where a permission holder is found to be
violating any of the terms and conditions of the permission or
any other provisions of these guidelines, other than violation
referred to in para 24(1), the Ministry shall have the right to
take action, as under:
TABLE : ACTION FOR VIOLATION
Sl.No. Violation Penal Action for violation
(i) Delay in intimation regarding change Warning
in shareholding pattern of the
company
(ii) Appointment of a Chief Executive Warning, with the condition that
Officer or Director/Designated the Chief Executive Officer or
Partner without prior permission of Director shall not function in that
the Ministry capacity till such time the
appointment is approved by the
Ministry.
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
(iii) Non-removal of Chief Executive Prohibition of broadcast up to 30
Officer or Director/Designated days; suspension of permission
Partner who has been denied in case of continued default
security clearance
(iv) Showing dual logo/logo or name not Order directing removal of the
permitted by the Ministry dual logo/unpermitted logo;
Prohibition of broadcast for up to
30 days for non-compliance
(v) Not maintaining the stipulated net Warning
worth for at least two consecutive
financial years
(vi) In respect of a channel, for being Warning
non-operational continuously for
more than 60 (but less than 90)
days, without intimating the Ministry.
(vii) In respect of a channel, for being Suspension; revocation of
non-operational for a continuous permission for continued default
period exceeding 90 days.
(viii) Non-payment of annual permission Prohibition of broadcast up to 30
fees beyond a period of one year days, Suspension of channel for
from the due date continued default
(ix) Non-registration for telecast of a Live Warning and/or stoppage of live
event by a non-news and current broadcast; Prohibition of
affairs channel broadcast upto 10 days,
debarment from live broadcast
for a period upto six months;
(x) Telecast of an event Live by a non- Stoppage of live broadcast;
news channel, content of which is in prohibition of broadcast upto 10
contravention of the Programme days
Code
(xi) Usage of non-permitted SNG/DSNG Prohibition of broadcast upto 30
equipment days; Suspension/cancellation of
permission for continued default
(xii) Transfer of a channel without Suspension/cancellation of
permission of the Ministry permission
(xiii) Uplinking of a non-permitted Forfeiture of Security Deposit.
suspended/cancelled TV channel by a The teleport would be required
teleport Operator to furnish fresh Security Deposit
as mentioned in Appendix IV
within 15 days of forfeiture;
Suspension/cancellation of
permission for continued default
(2) In case of continued default of any one or more of the
violations specified in the aforementioned table, the Ministry
may impose a higher degree of penal action.
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
(3) Contravention of any of the terms and conditions of
permission, other than those specified in sub-para (1), may
invite one or more of the penal action mentioned in sub-para
(1) having regard to the nature and gravity of contravention.
(4) No penal action shall be taken under this para, unless
the company/LLP has been given an opportunity of being
heard."
4. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as under :
"The Petitioner company was incorporated under
Companies Act, 1956 on 08.04.2005 and the Petitioner
Company i.e., Rayudu Vision Media Limited, is being
represented by its authorized representative, Rayudu VVS,
Joint Managing Director. The Petitioner company had obtained
permission for Uplinking and Downlinking News Channel in
the year 2007 that is on 04.12.2007 vide Registration
No.108/I/2007-TV(I) and the said permission had been
renewed till 03.12.2027 vide Letter dated 18.03.2021.
Petitioner company is currently running News Channel "Prime
9 News" previously under name "RTV". Thereafter Petitioner
applied for permission to go back to its original name "RTV" in
January 2023 and the same is pending with the Respondent.
The Petitioner company also operates several You Tube
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
Channels in name of RTV collectively under RTV news
network. The RTV news network is one of the fast emerging
Social Media News Network on You Tube and other Social
Media Platforms and is well connected with public in general.
The Petitioner company faced difficulty in generating
revenues to stay afloat and the situation worsened after Covid
pandemic. As such the Petitioner company had entered into
Agreement with M/s. Samhitha Broadcasting Private Limited,
dated 15.02.2021 and Addendum dated 02.03.2021. Though
the Petitioner company entered into an Agreement dated
16.08.2018 with M/s.Samhitha Broadcasting Private Limited,
it did not come into force due to change of minds between
parties. The Petitioner company after deciding to adopt a new
name had made an application to the Respondent regarding
change of name and logo from 'RTV' to 'Prime 9 News' old
logo vide letter dated 16.03.2021. Thereafter the Respondent
vide letter dated 08.04.2021 had granted permission for
change of logo from RTV to Prime 9 News old logo. After a
business meeting and after a strategy the Petitioner company
took the decision to change the new Prime 9 News logo and
to go back to its original name 'RTV' and to terminate the
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
Agreement with SBPL. The Petitioner paid the requisite fee
and also filed an application dated 16.01.2023 before the
Respondent as per Rules for change of name/logo. The
Petitioner also addressed a representation dated 03.04.2023,
but however, the Respondent remained silent for more than 6
months in clear violation of Clause 20(3) and Clause 6(b) of
the MIB Guidelines, 2022. The Petitioner was surprised to
receive Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2023 with a
preconceived notion of revoking the permission for Uplinking
and Downlinking of news channel of Petitioner and it is
alleged in the said Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2023 that
the Petitioner had submitted forged documents of Application
No. 5538744, dated 21.07.2022 by forging the name of
Rayudu Vision Media Limited as applicant. The Petitioner
again received another Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2023
and Final Show Cause Notice dated 06.06.2023 on the same
preconceived notion of revoking the permission to Uplink and
Downlink News and Current Affairs Channel of Petitioner on
the ground that the Petitioner had made a false claim of being
owner of Prime 9 News and a simple Google search with
Prime 9 News indicates M/s. Samhitha Broadcasting Private
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
Limited as owner and not the Petitioner herein. It is the
specific case of the Petitioner that the Agreement entered into
between the Petitioner and SBPL did not whisper of transfer of
ownership and a Google search result cannot be the criteria
for showing the ownership. All the Show Cause Notices dated
14.06.2023, 20.06.2023 and 27.06.2023 had been issued to
the Petitioner under Clause 25(1)(ix), 25(2) and 26(2) of MIB
Guidelines, 2022 by retrospective application for the
allegations said to have taken place even before the release
of MIB Guidelines, 2022 and the said Guidelines were
released on 09.11.2022 and the Show Cause Notices sought
information related to events alleged to have taken place
prior to the release of the 2022 MIB Uplinking and
Downlinking Policy Guidelines. It is further the specific case of
the Petitioner that the Respondent had resorted to
retrospective application of Guidelines without any clear
manifestation. The Respondent had passed the order
impugned dated 07.07.2023 wherein the permission for
Uplinking News Channel of Petitioner was revoked under
pretext of Clause 25(1)(ix), 25(2) and 26(2) of MIB
Guidelines, 2022, without considering all the pleas put-forth
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
by the Petitioner and aggrieved by the same the Petitioner
filed the present Writ Petition.
5. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. P. Raghu Ram
appearing on behalf of the Petitioner mainly put-forth
the following submissions :
i. The order impugned is passed in violation of
principles of natural justice.
ii. The Petitioner had not been provided with an
opportunity of being heard before the competent
authority inspite of several requests made by the
Petitioner for personal hearing vide replies dated
13.06.2023, 19.06.2023, 26.06.2023 and 03.07.2023.
iii. Hundreds of the employees of the Petitioner
News Channel Prime 9 News were deprived of their
livelihood causing serious and irreparable injury to the
Petitioner company.
iv. Without establishing that the Petitioner
channel had acted against the public interest and
against the national security, the Respondent referred
to Clause 26(2) of the Policy Guidelines, 2022.
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
v. The Under Secretary of Respondent, who
passed the impugned order is not the Competent
Authority perse.
vi. The Petitioner had been denied of personal
hearing before the Competent Authority while dealing
with the vital issue of revocation of permission under
Clause 26(2) in consonance with Cable TV Act and
Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
vii. The Respondent adopted an unwarranted,
unlawful interpretation of Clause 26(2) of MIB
Guidelines, 2022, more so when admittedly there is no
whisper in any of the Show Cause Notices issued to the
Petitioner that the Petitioner had acted or telecasted
against public interest or national interest.
viii. The guidelines cannot over ride the statutory
law and fundamental rights.
ix. The Respondent acted in violation of Article
19 of the Constitution of India and Section 20 of the
Cable TV Act.
The Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the Petitioner referring in particular to the Policy
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
Guidelines for Uplinking and Downlinking of Television
Channels, dated 09.11.2022 and in particular referring
to the penalties for violation under Part-ix of the said
Guidelines, Clause 25(iv) contended that no penal
action should be taken for violation of transfer of
Channel without the permission of the Ministry by
suspending or cancelling the permission unless the
Company had been given an opportunity of being
heard, and since the same had not been followed even
as admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the
Respondent herein, the petitioner is entitled for the
relief as prayed for in the present writ petition and the
writ petition should be allowed as prayed for.
6. The Learned Additional Solicitor General of India
appearing on behalf of the Respondent placing reliance
on the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent mainly
put-forth the following contentions.
i. The Competent Authority has carefully
perused the submissions of the Petitioner and the
circumstantial evidences on record before giving
approval for cancellation of the channel.
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
ii. The Petitioner Company had been provided
plenty of opportunities through Show Cause Notices
and letters to present their views.
iii. The Petitioner Company was asked to
furnish various documentary evidences to substantiate
that the Operations, Management, Network Creation,
Techno Commercial are strictly within their domain and
M/s. Samhitha Broadcasting Private Limited, had no
role except space selling and air time slot filling.
Despite multiple opportunities Petitioner Company
failed to produce any documentary proof to show that
it is actually running and operating the TV channel
"Prime 9 News" itself and has not contracted out the
operations of the TV channel "Prime 9 News". Even the
bank statements show a monthly credit of fixed sum
receipt for Petitioner Company for contracting out of
operations. There is no expense incurred by the
company in running the channel. Even the payment to
leased line operator has been borne by M/s. Samhitha
Broadcasting Private Limited.
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
iv. The Petitioner company had been violating
Clause 11 of earlier Policy Guidelines, 2011 and
thereafter of Clause 32 of the Policy Guidelines, 2022.
v. Allowing a non-permitted entity without
security clearance to control the operation of News TV
Channel can be a big threat to National Security.
vi. The Petitioner company had been
continuously violating the uplinking and downlinking
guidelines since 16.10.2018 onwards and therefore
attracts maximum penalty applicable, looking into the
nature and gravity of the continued violations.
vii. The Petitioner company misused the
permission without prior permission of the ministry.
viii. Clause 25(4) of the Policy Guidelines for
uplinking and downlinking of Satellite Television
Channels in India, 2022 provides that no penal action
shall be taken under this para, unless the company/LLP
has been given an opportunity of being heard. However
the said Clause does not necessitate the requirement
for inperson hearing.
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
ix. Contention of the Petitioner company in
respect of retrospective application of guidelines being
unwarranted, arbitrary and unlawful is in correct.
x. With reference to personal hearing requests
it is to mention that the company failed to provide the
requisite documents repeatedly to MIB i.e., Time Slot
Agreement that expired on 16.09.2019, Rental
Agreements, Details of Employees, Salary paid to such
employees and kept on asking for personal hearing
instead of making required compliance. In lieu of
personal hearing, MIB provided repeated opportunities
to the Company to submit their written submissions.
xi. The Petitioner Company had contracted out
all the liabilities related to content creation and
operation control apart from authorizing M/s. SBPL to
provide content to be aired along with marketing,
distribution and promotion rights for the channel
"Prime 9 News". Thus the contention of the Petitioner
that content creation has been done by the Petitioner
itself and the entire editorial control was in the hands
of the Petitioner alone could not be corroborated along
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
with documentary evidences by the Company. This
tantamounts to contracting out the operations of the
TV channel in the garb of so called colourable device
i.e., "Time Slot Agreement", therefore the above
violation is liable for penal action under Policy
Guidelines of 2011 as well as 2022.
On the basis of the above submissions the
Learned Additional Solicitor General of India, though
admitted that an opportunity of personal hearing was
not provided to the Petitioner even as per the counter
affidavit filed by the Respondent herein yet submitted
that the Petitioner was provided a reasonable
opportunity and the principles of natural justice had
been duly followed and therefore the Petitioner is not
entitled for the relief as prayed for.
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION :
7. A bare perusal of the Policy Guidelines for
Uplinking and Downlinking of Television Channels,
dated 09.11.2022, Part-ix dealing with Penalties for
Violation of Clause 25 clearly indicates that the penal
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
action is contemplated for violation pertaining to
transfer of a Channel without permission of the
Ministry i.e., suspension/cancellation of permission and
Sub-Clause 4 of Clause 25 clearly indicates that no
penal action shall be taken under this para unless the
Petitioner Company had been given an opportunity of
being heard. The counter affidavit filed by the
Respondent in particular Para 22 Clause 'd' and 'g' read
as under :
"(d) Clause 25 (4) of the Policy Guidelines for Uplinking
and Downlinking of Satellite Television Channels in
India, 2022 provides that "No penal action shall be
taken under this para, unless the company/LLP
has been given an opportunity of being heard".
However, the said clause does not necessitate the
requirement for in-person hearing.
(g) I submit that in the letters dated
19.06.2023, 23.06.2023 and 03.07.2023, the
company had also requested an opportunity of
personal hearing through their representative to
clarify any further doubt in this regard. The
company was given ample opportunities to present their
stand in the matter by means of repeated letters dated
18.05.2023, 14.06.2023, 20.06.2023, 26.06.2023,
27.06.2023 and Final SCN dated 06.06.2023.
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
With reference to personal hearing requests, it is
to mention that the company failed to provide the
requisite documents repeatedly to MIB i.e. Time
Slot Agreement that expired on 16.09.2019, rental
agreements, details of employees, salary paid to
such employees and just kept on asking for
personal hearing instead of making required
compliance. In lieu of personal hearing, MIB
provided repeated opportunities to the company
to submit their written submissions."
8. This Court opines that the plea of the Respondent
herein in the counter affidavit at para 22(d) that Clause
25(iv) (referred to and extracted above) of the Policy
Guidelines for Uplinking and Downlinking of Satellite
Television Channels in India, 2022 does not necessitate
the requirement for in person hearing is not only a
statement made contrary to the Guidelines but also a
statement made in clear violation of principles of
natural justice. The averments made by the
Respondent in the counter affidavit at para 22(g)
(referred to and extracted above) clearly indicate that
admittedly the Petitioner Company vide letters dated
19.06.2023, 23.06.2023 and 03.07.2023 had requested
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
an opportunity of personal hearing through their
representative to clarify the subject issue, but
however, in lieu of personal hearing, MIB provided
repeated opportunities to the Company to submit their
written submissions is a clear indication of violation of
the relevant guidelines and also an example of clear
violation of the procedure as mandated under law.
9. This Court opines that the impugned proceedings
dated 07.07.2023 of the Respondent herein need to be
set aside for the following reasons :
(I) Breach of Rules of Natural Justice.
A) In the present case the allegation levelled against
the Petitioner is that the Petitioner allowed a non-
permitted entity without security clearance to control
the operation of a News TV Channel, and that the same
can be a big threat to National Security which
according to the Petitioner is factually incorrect and the
Petitioner cannot establish the same as true unless the
Petitioner is provided with a reasonable opportunity of
personal hearing which admittedly even as per the
counter affidavit Para 22 Clause (g) had not been
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
provided to the Petitioner though it is admitted in the
counter affidavit filed by the Respondent at Para 22
Clause (d) that no penal action shall be taken unless
the company has been given an opportunity of being
heard as per Clause 25(4) of the Policy Guidelines of
Uplinking and Downlinking of Satellite Television
Channels in India, 2022. This Court opines that right of
an individual to have the safeguard of the principles of
natural justice before being adversely commented upon
is statutorily recognized and violation of the same will
have to bear the scrutiny of judicial review." This Court
opines that fairness in action requires that procedures
which permit impairment of Fundamental Rights ought
to be just, fair and reasonable.
B) The Apex Court in the judgment reported in
(2009) 12 SCC 40 in "UMANATH PANDEY & OTEHRS v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER" at paras 10 &
11 observed as under :
Para 10 : The adherence to principles of natural
justice as recognized by all civilized States is of
supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body
embarks on determining disputes between the
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
parties, or any administrative action involving
civil consequences is in issue. These principles are
well settled. The first and foremost principle is
what is commonly known as audi alteram parte
rule. It says that no one should be condemned
unheard. Notice is the best limb of this principle.
It should apprise the party determinatively of the
case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose
should be adequate so as to enable him to make
his representation. In the absence of a notice of
the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the
order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is
but essential that a party should be put on notice
of the case before any adverse order is passed
against him. This is one of the most important
principles of natural justice. It is after all an
approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained
significance and shades with time. When the
historic document was made at Runnymede in
1215, the first statutory recognition of this
principle found its way into the "Manga Carta".
The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of
natural justice requires to "vacate, interrogate
and adjudicate". In the celebrated case of Cooper
v. Wandsworth Board of Works the principle was
thus stated: (ER p.420). "Even God himself did not
pass sentence upon Adam before he was called
upon to make his defence. 'Adam' (says God),
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
'where art thou? Hast thou that thou shouldest
not eat?". Since then the principle has been
chiseled, honed and refined, enriching its content.
Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity
to the concept, like polishing of a diamond.
Para 11 : "Principles of natural justice are those
rules which have been laid down by the courts as
being the minimum protection of the rights of the
individual against the arbitrary procedure that
may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and
administrative authority while making an order
affecting those rights. These rules are intended to
prevent such authority from doing injustice".
This Court opines that the Petitioner ought to
have been provided with an opportunity of personal
hearing prior to issuing the present impugned order
dated 07.07.2023 by the Respondent herein in all
fairness and admittedly as borne on record the
Petitioner had not been heard prior to passing of the
impugned order dated 07.07.2023 by the Respondent
herein and therefore the order impugned dated
07.07.2023 of the Respondent is in clear violation of
audi alteram partem rule.
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
C) The Apex Court in the judgment reported in
(2023) 6 SCC 1 in State Bank of India & Ors., Vs.
Rajesh Agarwal & Ors., at para 85 observed as under :
A Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of
India and Anr. Vs. Tulsiram Patel and Ors. has
categorically held that violation of the principles of
natural justice is a violation of Article 14.
The Court held that any State action in breach of
natural justice implicates a violation of Article 14: (SCC
p. 476, para 95)
"95. The principles of natural justice have
thus come to be recognised as being a part of the
guarantee contained in Article 14 because of the
new and dynamic interpretation given by this
Court to the concept of equality which is the
subject-matter of that article. Shortly put, the
syllogism runs thus: violation of a rule of natural
justice results in arbitrariness which is the same
as discrimination; where discrimination is the
result of State action, it is a violation of Article 14:
therefore, a violation of a principle of natural
justice by a State action is a violation of Article
14. Article 14, however, is not the sole repository
of the principles of natural justice. What it does is
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
to guarantee that any law or State action violating
them will be struck down. The principles of
natural justice, however, apply not only to
legislation and State action but also where any
tribunal, authority or body or men, not coming
within the definition of "State" in Article 12, is
charged with the duty of deciding a matter. In
such a case, the principles of natural justice
require that it must decide such matter fairly and
impartially."
D. In "CANTONMENT BOARD v. TARAMANI DEVI",
reported in (1992) Supp (2) SCC page 501, a two-judge
Bench of this Court held that the rule of audi alteram
partem is a part of Article 14. Similarly, in "DTC v.
MAZDOOR CONGRESS" reported in (1991) Supp (1) SCC
600, the Apex Court observed that the rule of audi
alteram partem enforces the equality clause in Article
14. Therefore, any administrative action which violates
the rule of audi alteram partem is arbitrary and
violative of Article 14.
This Court opines that administrative proceedings
which entail significant civil consequences must be
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
read consistent with the principle of natural justice to
meet the requirement of Article 14.
10. In "MANGILAL V. STATE OF M.P., reported in (2004) 2
SCC page 447, a two-Judge Bench of Apex Court held that
the principles of natural justice need to be observed even if
the statute is silent in that regard. In other words, a
statutory silence should be taken to imply the need to
observe the principles of natural justice where substantial
rights of parties are affected: (SCC pp.453-54, para 10)
observed as under:
"10. Even if a statute is silent and there are no positive
words in the Act or the Rules made thereunder, there
could be nothing wrong in spelling out the need to hear
the parties whose rights and interest are likely to be
affected by the orders that may be passed, and making
it a requirement to follow a fair procedure before
taking a decision, unless the statute provides
otherwise. The principles of natural justice must be
read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless
there is a clear mandate to the contrary. No form or
procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the
presentation of a litigant's defence or stand. Even in
the absence of a provision in procedural laws, power
inheres in every tribunal/court of a judicial or quasi-
judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to
achieve requirements of natural justice and fair play to
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
ensure better and proper discharge of their duties.
Procedure is mainly grounded on the principles of
natural justice irrespective of the extent of its
application by express provision in that regard in a
given situation. It has always been a cherished
principle. Where the statute is silent about the
observance of the principles of natural justice, such
statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the
principles of natural justice where substantial rights of
parties are considerably affected. The application of
natural justice becomes presumptive, unless found
excluded by express words of statute or necessary
intendment. Its aim is to secure justice or to prevent
miscarriage of justice. Principles of natural justice do
not supplant the law, but supplement it. These rules
operate only in areas not covered by any law validly
made. They are a means to an end and not an end in
themselves."
11. This Court opines that the order impugned dated
07.07.2023 passed by the Respondent herein is a clear
example of Procedural Impropriety.
It is settled law when a statute describes or
requires a thing to be done in a particular manner it
should be done in that manner or not at all.
A) (M.Shankara Reddy Vs. Amara Ramakoteswara Rao
reported in (2017) SCC Online Hyd 426).
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
B) The Division Bench of Apex Court in its judgment
dated 04.10.2021 in Supertech Ltd., Vs. Emerald Court
Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors., reported
in 2021 SCC Online SC 3422, referring to Taylor Vs.
Taylor, 1875 (1) Ch D426, Nazir Ahmed Vs. King
Emperor reported in (1936) L.R.63 Ind Ap372 and
Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. The
Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad & Ors.,
reported in AIR 1960 SC 801 at para 13 observed as
under :
"It is that where a power is given to do a certain
thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that
way or not at all and that other methods of
performance are necessarily forbidden. Hence when a
statute requires a particular thing to be done in a
particular manner, it must be done in that manner or
not at all and other methods of performance are
necessarily forbidden. This Court too, as adopted this
maxim. This rule provides that an expressly laid down
mode of doing something necessarily implies a
prohibition on doing it in any other way.
12. In the present case, the procedure laid down
under the statute has been totally ignored by the
Revising Committee.
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
Clause 25(2), Clause 25(4) and 26(2) of the policy
Guidelines, 2022 for Uplinking and Downlinking of
Satellite, Television Channels in India 2022 "MIB
Guidelines 2022" are extracted hereunder:
Clause 25(2) reads as under :
"(2) In case of continued default of any one or
more of the violations specified in the
aforementioned table, the Ministry may impose a
higher degree of penal action."
Clause 25(4) reads as under :
(4) No penal action shall be taken under
this para, unless the company/LLP has been
given an opportunity of being heard."
Clause 26(2) reads as under :
26. Powers of the Central Government:
"(2) The Ministry shall have the right to suspend the
permission of a channel for a specified period or cancel
its permission in public interest or in the interest of
national security to prevent its misuse, including
where the company/LLP is found to have misused
the permission by authorizing or enabling or
contracting out to any other person the
operations or other core functions/activities of the
channel through any explicit or implicit agreement or
arrangement, or there is a substantive change in
ownership of the company/LLP leading to complete
change in management and control over the
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
company/LLP without prior permission of the Ministry,
and the company or the LLP shall immediately comply
with such directives."
The present impugned order passed by the
Respondent is in clear violation of the mandatory
procedure laid down under Guideline 25(4) pertaining
to suspension/cancellation of permission in relation to
transfer of a Channel without permission of the
Ministry which clearly mandates in providing an
opportunity of being heard to the Company i.e., the
Petitioner herein prior to initiation of penal action
against the Petitioner which admittedly has not been
followed in the present case as borne on record since
the order impugned dated 07.07.2023 refers to Clause
25(I) (xii), Clause 25(2) and Clause 26(2) of Policy
Guidelines 2022 and a bare perusal of the same
extracted above clearly indicate that penal action had
been initiated against the Petitioner by the Respondent
herein without providing an opportunity of personal
hearing to the Petitioner in clear violation of the
relevant guidelines and the statute in force.
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
13. This Court without going into the other issues and
merits of the case upon the consent of all the learned
Counsel on record duly taking into consideration the
observations made by the Apex Court in the various
judgments (referred to and extracted above) and duly
considering the averments made in the counter
affidavit filed by the Respondent at Para 25(d) and
Para 25(g) (referred to and extracted above, this Court
is inclined to set aside the order impugned dated
07.07.2023 passed by the Respondent herein
pertaining to File No. 1404/6(ii)/2006-TV(I) Vol II, on
the ground that it is in clear violation of principles of
natural justice and in violation of clause 25 (4) of the
policy Guidelines in force, the Respondent herein is
directed to reconsider the whole issue afresh again in
strict adherence to the relevant guidelines in force
(referred to and extracted above) by giving a
reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the
Petitioner in accordance to law and pass appropriate
reasoned orders pertaining to the subject issue i.e.,
pertaining to cancellation of permission of the Channel
WP_18617_2023
SNJ
to M/s. Rayudu Vision Media Limited (RVML) to uplink
and downlink a News and Current Affairs TV Channel
namely "Prime 9 News" (earlier RTV) which had been
granted on 04.12.2007 in favour of the Petitioner
herein and had been subsequently renewed on
18.03.2021 for a further period upto 03.12.2027, within
a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy
of the order and duly communicate the decision to the
Petitioner herein.
It is further observed that the Petitioner is at
liberty to put-forth all the legal pleas available to the
Petitioner before the Respondent herein in addition to
all the pleas which had been raised and put-forth by the
Petitioner in the present writ petition and accordingly,
the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ
petition shall stand closed.
__________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
Date: 29.01.2024
Note : L.R. Copy to be marked.
B/o.Yvkr
