J S J CABLE NETWORK Vs. CABLE INDUSIND MEDIA COMMUNICATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner has sought for signals from respondent nos.1-6 of same channels. We have directed the petitioner on the last date of hearing that he must choose any one of the respondents as a MSO to supply signals to him and he cannot simultaneously ask for signals of the same channels from all the respondents. Today on instructions from his client, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner would seek signals from the second respondent.

(2.) Earlier, in this petition we had directed that since the petitioner will have to lay its own cable for seeking signals from the second respondent it is necessary that he obtains permission from the BESCOM authorities which learned counsel for the petitioner now submits he has obtained, but this is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents saying that that is not the final authorization.

(3.) SINCE we have granted the relief prayed for by the Petitioner by directing the 2nd Respondent to give signals on terms and conditions mentioned hereinabove, we do not think the Petitioner could seek relief from others. Hence, we discharge the said Respondents from the array of parties. Before concluding, however, we think it necessary to note that the 6th Respondent has filed a reply wherein it has taken a stand in regard to certain business conditions adopted by it. We prima facie think that these conditions are contrary to the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation 2004 framed by the TRAI. However, since no prayer is sought for in regard to validity of these conditions, we will not go into this question.