JAY POLYCHEM INDIA LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions primary grievance raised is common though there are certain ancillary issues raised as well in one or other writ petitions. The main challenge in these writ petitions is to the Notification dated 29.8.2003 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power conferred by sub- . Section (1) of Section 4A read with Section 9 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act' for short). Put it simply, the effect of the Notification is to defer the implementation of Conditional Access System (CAS) indefinitely in respect of specified areas of Delhi. It may be pointed out at this stage itself that the Central Government had earlier issued Notifications (details whereof would be mentioned at appropriate stage) implementing CAS w.e.f. 1.9.2003 in some specified areas of Delhi as well as in the cities of Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkatta. Whereas the CAS has duly been implemented in Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkatta w.e.f. 1.9.2003, the Notification dated 29.8.2003 has deleted the specified areas of Delhi as mentioned in earlier Notifications and thus CAS has not been implemented in Delhi. The petitioners in these writ petitions have alleged that the impugned action of the respondents is not only arbitrary, mala fide and based on irrelevant considerations, it is politically motivated as well.

(2.) . CWP.No.5676/2003 is filed by one Dr.Arvind Gupta in the nature of 'Public Interest Litigation; CWP. No. 5697/2003 is by Jay Polychem India Ltd. and; CWP. No.5698/ 2003 is by M/s.Siti Cable Network Ltd. and CWP. No. 5494/2003 is filed by Cable Network Association.

(3.) In order to appreciate the controversy, one will have to track the events leading to introduction of CAS in four metropolis.