CABLE OPERATORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:

(2.) Heard Shri.M.A.Abdul Hakhim, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri.Jaishankar v. Nair, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 as well as Shri.P.Jayabal Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent.

(3.) The petitioner, who claims to be an association having 62 local cable operators as it's members, challenges the provisions by which a default revenue sharing ratio of 55:45 between Multi System Operator (MSO) and Local Cable Operator (LCO) would be applicable in case parties fail to execute a Model Interconnection Agreement in Schedule V of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Inter Connection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017. It is stated that at present, on account of the self responsibilities and liabilities of the local cable operators, the 3rd respondent has been collecting only Rs.30/- per life connection per month including tax out of average monthly subscription of Rs.250/-. It is stated that this comes to around 12% monthly subscription charges. If the default revenue sharing ratio of 55:45 is in force, the 3rd respondent would be entitled to 55% of the monthly subscription which would be completely detrimental to the local cable operators who would be disabled from conducting their operations on the said ratio, it is contended. The contention is that the pressure exerted by the Regulations on the local cable operators to function at reduced revenue sharing would result in complete disruption of services, since the local cable operators would be unable to provide the services at the rates fixed in the default clause. The petitioner contends that the Regulations are unconstitutional being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the members under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and are arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is further stated that in view of the unequal bargaining power between the MSOs and LCOs, the members of the petitioner Association will be forced to agree to a revenue sharing which is completely disproportionate and is detrimental to the interest of such local cable operators. It is also contended that the bargaining power of the LCOs is severely restricted by the Model Revenue Sharing provided in the default clause. It is stated that the impugned provisions of the Regulations are devoid of legislative competence and is violative of the procedure prescribed for the framing of the Regulations as such.