SET DISCOVERY P LTD Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the validity of section 36 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 (the TRAI Act, 1997) and in particular regulations 4. 1 and 4. 2 of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations, 2004 (Interconnection Regulations 2004) as violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. In addition the petitioner also challenges the direction dated 12th January, 2005 issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of india, (TRAI) directing the petitioner to restore the signals to respondent no. 4, a last mile operator, and the show cause notice dated 25th January, 2005, issued by TRAI, upon the petitioner's failure to comply with the direction dated 12th January 2005.

(2.) THE petitioner-company is a distributor of satellite television channels to various cable operators based on affiliation agreements. Three Star communications-respondent no. 4, entered into an affiliation agreement dated 29th october, 2002 (agreement) with the petitioner to distribute certain television services. In terms of the agreement the petitioner was obliged to provide signals to the respondent no. 4 for onward transmission. In consideration thereof, the respondent no. 4 was required to pay the petitioner a monthly subscription fee by the 15th of every month.

(3.) THE petitioner states that the respondent no. 4 was a chronic defaulter and had always been late in payment of the monthly subscription fee. Further, although, respondent no. 4, kept reassuring and promising that it would clear its outstanding dues, it did not do so and was consequently in breach of the agreement. The petitioner avers that, therefore, it was well within its contractual right to deactivate the signals from as early as January, 2004 but did not do so on account of the repeated assurances given by respondent no. 4. It is stated that during a meeting between the parties held on the 5th of November 2004 the respondent agreed to pay the amount due as on that date by the 18th of november, 2004 However, respondent no. 4 failed to pay amounts due as agreed. It was in these circumstances, that the petitioner was constrained to deactivate the signals on 14. 12. 2004