C ESHWAR RAJU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Pujari, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri K.Lakshman, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondents 1 and 2, and Sri A.Tulsi Raj Gokul, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4.

(2.) This Writ Petition is filed praying to grant the following relief:

(3.) Petitioners claim to hold licence to operate and to provide Cable TV services in different areas in Medchal - Malkajgiri District and in Secunderabad by receiving Cable TV Channel signals from the respondents 3 and 4. Petitioners are Local Cable Operators (LOCs) and respondents 3 and 4 are Multi System Operators (MSOs). This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the information note to the Press (Press Release No.121/2018), dated 18.12.2018. In paragraph-2 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, petitioners set out their grievance necessitating to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reading of the prayer itself would show that though petitioners claim to be aggrieved by the second proviso to Regulation 12 (3), proviso to Regulation 12 (7), prescribing the ratio of 55:45 specified in Clause-12.1 of Standard Interconnection Agreement (SIA) in Schedule-VI of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations 2017, more particularly principle of default revenue sharing ratio between Multi System Operators and Local Cable Operators, but petitioners prayed to set aside the Press Release dated 18.12.2018 on the ground that it was issued without prior notice and therefore violates principle of natural justice, and seek to remand the matter to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) for fresh disposal, with liberty to petitioners to appear and produce documentary evidence along with written arguments and to afford opportunity before issuing such Press Release. Though grounds urged extensively point out their grievances on various aspects of regulations mentioned in the prayer, but relief is not sought against validity of those regulations. In other words, grievance is confined to the release of Press Note without prior notice.