HATHWAYCABLE DATACOMPRIVET LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition it has been prayed that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandalllliS be issued for implementing the transmission/retransmission of pay channels only through an addressable system in the specified areas of Mumbai, Kolkata and the National Capital Territory of Delhi in accordance with the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995; that the actions or omission on the part of respondent No. I in not implementing the provisions of Section 4A of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 be declared &S patently illegal, mala fide and arbitrary in nature; that the respondent No. 1 be directed to take necessary steps directing the respective State Governments to make available necessary resources for the implementation of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995; that respondent No. 2 be directed to take necessary steps to implement the above said prayers. It has also been prayed that in the alternative, damages be awarded to the petitioners in compensation of the losses and costs for non-implementation of the mandate of the Parliament as prescribed in Section 4A of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.

(2.) In Jay Polychem India Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2004 IV AD (Delhi) 249 the petitioners had laid siege upon the Notification dated 29.8.2003 issued by the Central Government ostensibly in exercise of powers seen to have been conferred by Sub-section (I) of Section 4A read with Section 9 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (hereafter referred to as 'the Cable Act, for brevity). That Notification attempted to indefinitely defer the implementation of the Conditional Access System ('CAS' for short) in the metropolis of Delhi, and thereby nullify the earlier Notifications which mandated the introduction of CAS with effect from 1.9.2003. The Division Bench inter alia noted that the Report of the Task Force dated 27.2.2002 had found CAS to be beneficial to public interest, and that the revenue that had been generated at that time was approximately Rs. 5700 crores. Predicated on this Report Parliament had introduced Section 4A into the Cable Act, which in essence postulated that public interest demanded amendment to the statute. Section 4A reads thus:

(3.) The Division Bench in Jay Polychem, inter alia, had recorded the contention of the Additional Solicitor General that CAS had been viewed by the respondents as a consumer friendly initiative. The stand of the Government, despite this admission, was the, in view of the impending elections the proposed introduction of CAS had caused competing and conflicting political interests to arise; that a proper enforcement of its provisions was essential; that the exercise of discretion pertaining to the date of implementation is intra vires the Act. It was further contended that since Parliament had left the decision on the Central Government when to introduce CAS. a writ would not lie for mandating its enforcement. Principles pertaining to conditional and subordinate legislation had been explained by the Division Bench in these words: