PARVINDER SINGH Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are partners in the partner-hip concern calling Messrs Network Corporation (India) which is running its business at H. No. 18-C Model Town, Phagwara. The firm was set up for the business of showing T. V. programme from pre-recorded Video Cassettes through a cable network and for that purpose the necessary infrastructure was created. It has been averred in the petition that the normal television programmes are broadcast through airwaves by Doordarshan, but cable TV is a facility by which the subscribers are given connections to the television sets of individual subscribers through cables from a common studio It has been further averred that as the cable, which was to carry signals from the VCR to the T. V. sets, was required to transgress a public street, the firm applied to respondent No. 1, the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Phagwara, for permission to dig the road for the purpose of taking the cable from one side of the road to the other. The permission was initially accorded but while the work was under progress, respondent No. 1 issued a notice to the firm (Annexure P-2 to the petition) asking it to stop laying the cable and to get permission in writing from the District Magistrate, Kapurthala, for continuing with its business It has been further averred that though no licence/permission was required under the law for doing its business, the firm nevertheless, applied to the District Magistrate, Kapurthala, for the requisite permission. Instead of granting the licence to the firm, respondent No. 2 i. e. the Addl. District Magistrate Kapurthala, addressed a communication to the Joint Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, on I4th September, 1989, Annexure P-3 to the petition, asking for guidance as to how the application made by the firm was to be dealt with. The petitioners have approched this Court for seeking the quashing of Annexure P-2 on the ground that there was no rule nor regulation requiring them to take a licence before carrying on the business of exhibiting pre-recorded cassettes on T. V. through cables.

(2.) VIDE orders of this Court dated 12. 12 1989 the Secretary Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, New Delhi, as also the Municipal Committee, Phagwara, were impleaded as respondents 4 and 5. Separate written statements have been filed-one on behalf of respondent No. 1, another by respondents 2 and 3 and yet a third by respondent No. 4 The stand basically taken is that the petitioner-firm was required to obtain a licence before exhibiting its programmes through cable TV as provided by Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter called the Act of 1885), the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act. 1933 (hereinafter called the 'telegraphy Act') and the relevant rules published thereunder

(3.) THE pleadings of the parties being somewhat sketchy, I had initially toyed with the idea of adjourning the case to get better particulars, but the State counsel Mrs. Cham Tuli, Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, has produced before me a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported as Ramakrishna Dish Antena System v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karkapur, A. I. R. 1989 A. P. 295, which clearly endorse the stand taken by the respondents.