MAHADEV CABLE NET THROUGH ITS PARTNER GOVERDHANBAI AMBABHAI PATEL Vs. STAR INDIA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an Application filed under Section 19 read with Section 20 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (the Act) praying for the execution of the order made by this Tribunal on 20th April, 2006 in Petition No. 70(C) of 2006. There is a further prayer to take necessary action against the respondent for willful disobedience of the above said order.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this application are as follows:

(3.) THE matter was listed for further directions/hearing on 27th June, 2006. On that date the learned Counsel for the respondent filed an affidavit stating that on an enquiry it was found that the applicant was receiving Star�s signals from one M/s Surat Cable Network and respondent has no objection to continuing that arrangement but the petitioner did not agree for the said arrangement contending that the directions issued by this Tribunal in the original petition as well as on 2nd June, 2006 should be complied with by the respondent which required the respondent to give signals. This Tribunal in that order also recorded that the learned Counsel for the respondent had stated that the said respondent will take steps to comply with the order of this Tribunal dated 20.04.2006 and make earnest efforts to reach an amicable solution. THE matter was then adjourned to 14th July, 2006. On the adjourned date the learned Counsel for respondent sought for another short adjournment which was granted and the matter was listed for 19th July, 2006. On the date when this matter was taken up for further orders the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that under the Interconnection Regulations it was open to the respondent broadcaster to supply signals to the petitioner through an intermediary. Since petitioner is already receiving signals from another service provider the original order of this Tribunal stood complied with, therefore, there is no scope for making further orders either under Section 19 or Section 20 of the Act. He also contended that petitioner is in default in payment of the subscription amount as also the petitioner is guilty of illegally transmitting signals to unauthorized areas, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get relief under the original order of this Tribunal.