GLOBAL ASSOCIATES Vs. OM PRAKASH POPLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 23. 09. 2008 1. """""" Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""yes"" 2. """""" To be referred to the Reporter or not"""""" """"""""""yes""""""" 3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """"" """" cm APPL No. 13376/2008 exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. LPA No. 562/2008, CM APPL Nos. 13375, 13374, 13793, 13897/2008 and CM APPL no________/2008 (to be numbered)1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 12th September 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of WP (C) No. 6721 of 2008 filed by the appellant Prasar Bharti.

(2.) THE background to the filing of the present appeal is that the appellant Prasar Bharti, which is a body incorporated under Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act 1990, is carrying on the business of telecasting and broadcasting through its units Doordarshan and All India Radio. The appellant was, by a Sanction Order dated 19th November 2003 of the government of India in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, granted approval to expand its television coverage by providing Direct-to-home (DTH)broadcasting service using Satellite Distribution Technology in Ku-band frequency for Doordarshan"s bouquet of 20 channels and 10 channels of private broadcasters in free-to-air mode. The appellant was required to "make every effort to recover carriage fees from private broadcasters whose channels will be carried in the bouquet. " The appellant formally launched its Satellite "dd direct+" on 16th December 2004 with a capacity of 30 channels. This was later expanded to 50 channels. Of these, 19 slots were used by the appellant for its own TV channels and 31 slots were kept available for the private broadcasters. The appellant claims that it incurred an expense of Rs. 30 crores towards transponder charges, cost of equipment and incidental costs for setting up the requisite technology.

(3.) THE appellant executed separate agreements with respondent No. 1 Total telefilms Limited ("total"), respondent No. 2 Charhdikala Publications Pvt. Ltd ("charhdikala") and respondent No. 3 Zee Turner Limited ("zee Turner") agreeing to carry their channels on its DTH platform for a consideration of Rs. 25 lakhs each, had agreed to carry those private channels on its platform. Similar agreements were entered into with six other private channels. Each of the said agreements was valid for a period of one year, i. e till 6th September 2008. One of the clauses in the agreement stipulated that: "the agreement could be extended for such further period and on such terms as may be mutually agreed upon. However fresh agreement shall have to be executed in case of any variance in terms of this agreement. "the Channel Provider" must convey his intention for extension at least 90 days before the expiry of this agreement. " by separate agreements the appellant agreed to carry, for the same consideration of Rs. 25 lakhs, other private channels. The appellant had, as on September 5, 2008 three free slots of the 31 on which it could carry the channels of private broadcasters.