W.P.Nos.

20715 and 20718 of 2023

W.P.Nos.20715 and 20718 of 2023

and W.M.P.Nos.20076 and 20081 of 2023

N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
The petitioners herein are local cable operators (LCO), who have entered

into a contract with the 1st respondent, a MSO. Initially the members of the

petitioners were operating in the analog platform, and as per the directions

of TRAI, the analog platform was entirely replaced by digital platform. This

conversion ended in April 2017, and ever since the cable network operation

is happening on the digital platform. While so, the 1st respondent, the MSO

has issued notices under the Revenue Recovery Act for realising what it

claims as certain arrears of charges payable by the LCO to the MSO when

the cable TV operation was operated in the analog platform, that is prior to

March 2017.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits in all cases where any

dispute arises between the MSO and the LCO, it has to be resolved only by

the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 14 of the TRAI Act. While

this is yet to happen, the 1st respondent has invoked the Revenue Recovery

Act to realise what it claims as arrears of charges, which the petitioners are

in default in paying.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
 W.P.Nos.20715 and 20718 of 2023

3.Learned counsel submitted that the entire cable TV operation comes under

the purview of TRAI Act and vide Section 19 of the said Act any order

passed by the Appellate Tribunal is required to be treated as a decree of a

civil court. The learned counsel also emphasizes that the scheme of TRAI

Act does not provide for unilateral imposition of any charges and submitted

that even if a show cause notice is issued and even if it is not responded to

by any of the LCOs, then the MSO has the only option of approaching the

Appellate Tribunal in terms of Section 14 (A) of the said Act.

4.Mr.J.Ravindran, the learned A.A.G. made a preliminary statement for all

the respondents that the petitioners do not fall within Section 14, as they are

licensees under the Cable TV Network Act, 1994 and not under the TRAI

Act.

5.In the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner also

submitted that the period for which the claim is made, the 1 st respondent has

not even provided signal to analog platform.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/4
 W.P.Nos.20715 and 20718 of 2023

6.Turning to the petition seeking interim stay is concerned, the learned

counsel for the respondents takes objection that despite the final order

passed sometime in September 2022, the petitioners have approached the

Court only now. This Court understands that the writ petition seemed to

have been filed in March 2023.

7.Now it is time to balance rival convenience. Here is a scenario where the

1st respondent chose to act some five years after the analog platform was

given up. There is also a larger issue of jurisdiction raised. This Court

therefore finds the balance of convenience for the present is in favour of the

petitioner. Therefore, there will be an order of injunction, restraining the 1st

respondent and its authorities from proceeding to take any precipitate action

based on any of the notices that it has or it proposes to issue under the

Revenue Recovery Act.

8.Post the matter on 31.07.2023.

13.07.2023
(1/2)

kas

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/4
 W.P.Nos.20715 and 20718 of 2023

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

kas

W.P.Nos.20715 and 20718 of 2023

and W.M.P.Nos.20076 and 20081 of 2023

13.07.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/4