ORDER K.D. Shahi, President — These 4 connected revisions arise out of main order dated 9.11.2004 passed by the District Forum, Dehra Dun passed in two separate Complaints No. 114 of 2004, Sh. Vishwamitra Bhardwaj v. M/s. New Prime Network and Others1, and Sh. Vipin Semwal v. M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network and Others2. In all the four revisions, common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, all the revisions are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The main revision was filed by M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. on 16.11.2004, while the stay order was passed by the learned Forum on 9.11.2004. The revision could not be disposed of earlier because on the dates of hearing, the learned Counsel for M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. argued that the order passed by the learned Forum is ex parte, date for hearing has been fixed on merits for vacation or confirmation of the injunction order but the fact remains that the Dehra Dun Forum has become defunct. The lady member has not been appointed for the last more than one year. The other member Sh. K.P.S. Lamba has gone on long leave of about 6 months. The learned Forum could not hear the injunction matters on merits, therefore M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services has also filed two revisions against the same order with a prayer that the revisions be disposed of by this State Commission and merit of the order be examined because the learned District Forum, Dehra Dun has become defunct. We are fully aware of the provisions of law that in revision, only jurisdictional matters are to be seen. The revision lies only when there is no exercise of jurisdiction or wrong exercise of jurisdiction. In a case decided by Punjab State Commission reported in Tarsem Lal Goyal v. Union of India3, it has been specifically held that Power of Commission in exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 17(b) of the Act is strictly restricted to the question of jurisdiction. The same view has been given by the National Commission in the ruling reported in Telecom District Manager, Patna v. M/s. Kalyanpur Comfit Ltd.4 and Mohan Lal Gupta v. Haryana Telecom Circle and Another5. 3. The learned Counsel for M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services Mr. The same view has been given by the National Commission in the ruling reported in Telecom District Manager, Patna v. M/s. Kalyanpur Comfit Ltd.4 and Mohan Lal Gupta v. Haryana Telecom Circle and Another5. 3. The learned Counsel for M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services Mr. Rajeshwar Singh referred the ruling reported in C.S. Menon v. V.V. Kanniah and Others6 given by the Hon’ble National Commission and referred para 6 of the ruling. In this ruling as well firstly there has been wrong exercise of jurisdiction and that exercise is with material irregularity. It is not held that merely on the basis of material irregularity, the revision has been admitted. The material irregularity shall go to the root of jurisdictional error, then only it can be seen. The learned Forum has got jurisdiction to grant interim injunction. The complainants are consumers inasmuch as they are paying consideration. They are paying consideration through M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network or M/s. New Prime Network, who are paying consideration to M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. These cable networks are not paying the money from their own pocket. They are paying consideration to M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. through the collections from the consumers and then M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. transmits its programmes. The consumer disputes are not confined only to direct consumer and service provider. Even the beneficiaries of services are entitled to raise such disputes and in that case there may or may not be privity of contract between M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and the consumer directly but being the beneficiaries of transmission on payment of consideration, they are entitled to a relief, if they are not being provided transmission and, therefore, there is consumer dispute and if there is a consumer dispute, the Forum has got jurisdiction to pass interim orders and if the Forum has got jurisdiction to pass interim order and has passed orders on sufficient grounds, it cannot be said to be a case of jurisdictional error. The revisions should be disposed of merely on these grounds but being a supervisory authority of the District Forum, we can suo motu examine the case and in view of the fact that the Forum is not going to pass any orders in the coming 6 months, we have to discharge our own obligations and to see whether the order stands on merit or not and, therefore, we proceeded to hear the case on merits. 4. The case of the consumers in all the two cases who have filed the complaint is that they are being paying subscription of Rs. 260/- to M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network and M/s. New Prime Network. They have been transmitting all channels. Star Plus was one of them. We need not emphasize that this is most coveted channel for the ladies because it shows good serials particularly Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi and other serials, but all of a sudden, although the complainants have been paying subscriptions, the channel was stopped. It being a consumer dispute, they filed the complaints. It is to be emphasized that these two consumers were getting their transmission through these two cable networks, namely M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network and M/s. New Prime Network and, therefore, they arrayed them as party in their complaints because the payment is being made to them, they were transmitting it to M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. but the dispute which developed took a separate turn and the dispute became a dispute between M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network and M/s. New Prime Network at one hand and M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services at the other. We fully agree with the emphatic argument of the learned counsel for M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services Sh. Rajeshwar Singh that this Commission will not decide the dispute between the cable operators and M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. This Commission or Forum will not decide who should give transmission to the complainants but one thing is clear that all the counsels for all the parties had conceded during the course of arguments that such above controversy cannot be decided by the Forum or Commission but nobody can dispel this argument that the consumers are prima facie entitled to the transmission in view of payment of their considerations. We fully agree that we cannot direct M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. to give transmission to the complainants through M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network or M/s. New Prime Network but at the same time we also agree that we have got no business to say that the complainants should be given transmission through any specific operator, say M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services. The matter should be decided by M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. itself, without any prejudice or favour or discrimination between their operators as per guidelines of the TRAI. 5. The learned Counsel for M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network and M/s. New Prime Network Mr. T.S. Bindra argued that since the complaints have been filed against them and since they have been receiving subscriptions and if the complaints are allowed, they will also have to pay compensation, therefore, while granting or refusing injunction, their case should also be examined. Similar was the argument of the learned counsel for M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services that now they have entered into the contract. They have now to transmit and this is not the jurisdiction of the Forum to order that the complainants should be given transmission through M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network or M/s. New Prime Network. We do not want to go into this controversy but to examine the prima facie case, the case of M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network and M/s. New Prime Network is similar. Their agreement is said to have expired on 31.12.2004. An addendum has also been executed on 1.1.2004. In this addendum in para 3, the period of extension has not been given. It was argued by the learned counsel for M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network and M/s. New Prime Network Sh. T.S. Bindra that it is for unlimited period. He further argued that his agency has been cancelled on the ground that he has been defaulter but through the statements on record, it was shown that there is no default at all, therefore, his agreement cannot be terminated on this ground. To the contrary the case of M/ s. Blue Sky Digital Services was that he has entered into a fresh agreement with M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and that is effective till 30th June, 2007. It was also shown by Mr. To the contrary the case of M/ s. Blue Sky Digital Services was that he has entered into a fresh agreement with M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. and that is effective till 30th June, 2007. It was also shown by Mr. T.S. Bindra that in the same agreement of M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services, M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. has shown the name of M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network and M/s. New Prime Network at Dehra Dun as cable operators who are existing subscribers of the subscribed channels. This agreement is said to have been executed on 14.10.2004. It was argued that Exhibit-D of this agreement is also having the names of M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network and M/s. New Prime Network as cable operators, all of a sudden both of them cannot be deleted from the list of cable operators of Star Channels by M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. It was argued that Exhibit - D is part and parcel of the agreement and it will survive till the agreement survives. 6. The learned Counsel for M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network and M/s. New Prime Network Mr. T.S. Bindra tried to show that this M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. is playing a fraud with the two operators M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network and M/s. New Prime Network by showing them defaulters, although there is absolutely no default as shown in the statement of accounts. Again we may emphasize that it is not our jurisdiction to decide whether the agreement between M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network and M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. exists, whether M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services has stepped into the shoes of both of them but at the same time if the complainants are entitled to transmission, it should be done. 7. The learned counsel for the cable operators Sh. T.S. Bindra argued that there is no default in payment on the rent rate and M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. wanted to enhance the rate by directing that two other pay channels be taken and subscription be increased, to which the consumes were not ready. 7. The learned counsel for the cable operators Sh. T.S. Bindra argued that there is no default in payment on the rent rate and M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. wanted to enhance the rate by directing that two other pay channels be taken and subscription be increased, to which the consumes were not ready. He further argued on the basis of the notification of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India issued on 15.1.2004 on the basis of Section 2 that the charges payable by cable subscribers to cable operator cannot be increased and ceiling shall be as prevalent on 26.12.2003 but M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. out of its own wanted to supersede the notification of the Telecom Authority of India. He further argued that in the notification dated 1.10.2004 as well, the tariff has been defined to be of same ceiling which was till 26.12.2003 and if any pay channel was introduced, the subscription was to be increased on a stand alone basis, nobody could have been forced to take the pay channels. He further argued that in view of the notification of the TRAI dated 10.12.2004, every broadcaster (say in this case M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd.) shall provide on request signals of its TV channels on non-discriminatory terms to all distributors of TV channels, which may include, but be not limited to a cable operator. It was argued that even in the agreement of M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services, these cable operators have been shown in Exhibit-D, therefore, M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. has got no right to stop signal to them. It was argued by Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, learned counsel for M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services that there is provision clause that if there has been default in payment, the notification shall not apply. We have already told above that no such default has been proved. It was further argued by Mr. Rajeshwar Singh on the basis of notification dated 10.12.2004 that if there is any breach of the terms of notification as provided in Rule 3.6, the aggrieved party can approach the appropriate Forum. The appropriate Forum in this case is TRAI or competent court but not the Forum. We fully agree to this argument. 8. It was argued by Mr. Rajeshwar Singh on the basis of notification dated 10.12.2004 that if there is any breach of the terms of notification as provided in Rule 3.6, the aggrieved party can approach the appropriate Forum. The appropriate Forum in this case is TRAI or competent court but not the Forum. We fully agree to this argument. 8. It was argued by Mr. T.S. Bindra that if M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. wanted disconnection, it should have complied with the terms of notification dated 10.12.2004, in which it has been provided that no broadcaster shall disconnect the TV channel signals to a distributor of TV channels without giving one month notice indicating the brief reasons for the proposed action. Copy of no such notice has been filed on record. It is not alleged that any notice has been given to M/s. New Prime Network and M/s. Uttaran-chal Cable Network, therefore, it was argued that the disconnection itself is illegal. It was further argued that there can be oral agreement as provided under Section 4.1 of this notification. It is true that on the basis of the statement of the learned counsel for M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. that if the operators pay them the charges, they shall start signals, the operators made the payment, signals were started, it may be taken as an oral agreement between the parties but again to say that this dispute shall not be decided by this Commission. However as regards the rights of the consumers, there is specific provision in Rule No. 4.2 that broadcaster shall inform the consumers about the dispute to enable them to protect their interests. Accordingly, the notice to discontinue signal shall also be given in two local newspapers in case the distributor of TV channels is operating in local area and in two national papers in case the distributor of TV channels is providing services in a wide area. Alternatively consumers can be informed through scroll on the concerned cha-nnel(s). On the record there is no such paper to show that any such publication was made. The learned counsel for M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. wanted to show some papers, which have not been filed on record till date, to which we refused to entertain at the fake end of the arguments. At least there is no such document on the record. 9. The learned counsel for M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. wanted to show some papers, which have not been filed on record till date, to which we refused to entertain at the fake end of the arguments. At least there is no such document on the record. 9. Coming to the two revisions of M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services. These revisions are not at all maintainable in view of the fact that neither the learned Forum nor this Commission has passed any order against them. It is that several persons approached to be impleaded as party to the proceedings being a case of public interest, they were allowed. M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services also wanted to introduce themselves on the basis that they have got agreements and if any order is passed in favour of M/s. New Prime Network or M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network, his rights shall be affected, therefore, he was also heard. His prima facie case was also examined by the learned Forum and Mr. T.S. Bindra learned Counsel for the cable operators argued that when M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services applied that it be arrayed as party to the proceedings, the learned Forum directed to produce the agreement, if any. The learned counsel for M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services Mr. Rahul Sharma conceded that there is no agreement in writing till date but agreement is in process. It shows that till 18.1.2005, there was no agreement at all. Mr. T.S. Bindra, learned counsel for the cable operators argued that wherefrom this agreement dated 14.10.2004 sprang up, if it was not in existence uptil 18.1.2005. Mr. T.S. Bindra produced before us the order dated 2.2.2005 passed by the District Forum, wherein the learned Forum has specifically held: (“Hindi Matter omitted”) It was argued that this finding of the learned Forum has not been challenged. We have also gone through the entire revision filed by M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services, it has filed the revision only against the order dated 9.11.2004 and 2.3.2005 but no allegation whatsoever has been made against the order dated 2.2.2005. It was argued that this order, therefore, has become final and cannot be agitated upon. 10. It was argued that this agreement has been introduced only to defeat the rights of the operators, who have been operating the cables. It was argued that this order, therefore, has become final and cannot be agitated upon. 10. It was argued that this agreement has been introduced only to defeat the rights of the operators, who have been operating the cables. May it be so but we are not going to adjudicate about the validity, illegality or the enforcement of these two agreements. When absolutely no order was passed against M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services, it cannot be said to be an aggrieved party. No injunction was granted against them, no order was passed against them, therefore, they have got no locus standi to file the revision but since we have heard everything on merits and we have gone into every detail because all the concerned parties argued the case at length for full continuous two days, we find it our duty to reply each and every argument so that the other day, we may not be told that these points were argued but the matter was not considered. 11. The complainants cannot be forced to remove the line and the other day to start paying subscription to any particular operator. That is the business duty of M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. to see to it but prima facie the complainants have got every prima facie case for transmission. A number of interveners have intervened in the matter to argue that they are also consumers. In fact this case has become a case of public importance. A judicial notice of the fact can be taken that everybody in these days is a consumer of cable network and the most coveted channel is the Star Channel. No consumer can be asked to pay subscription and not to get this privilege of seeing Star Network. The learned Counsel for M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services Sh. Rajeshwar Singh argued that in the receipt filed by the consumers, it is nowhere written that they are paying subscription for Star Network. No network has been written in any receipt, nor name of any network is ever written. The cable operator charges consideration for all the channels, which he has and he is bound to transmit all the channels. This argument is fallacious that merely because Star Network is not written on the receipt, the complainants have got no case for injunction. 12. The cable operator charges consideration for all the channels, which he has and he is bound to transmit all the channels. This argument is fallacious that merely because Star Network is not written on the receipt, the complainants have got no case for injunction. 12. One thing, which we are unable to appreciate is that M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. is neither a director nor monopolistic concern. It was charging @ Rs. 30/- per connection for 6900 consumers from M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network. It again called for 10902 consumers. Likewise is the number of other cable operator. A privity of contract is created by these payments between the consumers and the network, because this is the money of the consumers, which is paid by the operator. As far as we know about cable operators, the system is that they transmit the channel through cables, it is why they are called cable operators. A judicial notice of the fact can be taken that every house has got a cable connection these days. A judicial notice of the fact can also be taken that every cable operator has got an area. Every operator has got almost all channels. If one network appoints one distributor for each channel, then there shall be at least fifty cables in a house and one has to pay fee to 50 operators. A person will like to take connection from the operator who has got every channel. Cable through which connection is given to a consumer belongs to the operator. Now it is not clear how one day the star network can tell to remove the cable of this operator and take transmission from other operator. In this way every consumer has to pay almost Rs. 3,000/-as security and other charges for the change of cables whenever the network changes its operator. This is not like telephone. Change the telephone daily, you have nothing to do except purchasing the apparatus. Now the network wants to say that stop payment to M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network and M/s. New Prime Network and take connection from M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services. How it is possible without change of cables has not been explained by anybody. This is all unfair trade practice. 13. Even otherwise the consumer also becomes party by making payment to the operator which goes to the Star Network through distributor/operator. How it is possible without change of cables has not been explained by anybody. This is all unfair trade practice. 13. Even otherwise the consumer also becomes party by making payment to the operator which goes to the Star Network through distributor/operator. The transmission cannot be stopped all of a sudden, without any default of the consumer by saying that we have changed our operator/distributor. So was exactly done in this case without any prior notice to these thousands of consumers of M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network and M/s. New Prime Network. The transmission could not have been stopped without making an alternative arrangement because the network is not luxury these days but has become essential service and it is why various rules and regulations have been enforced to control them as well. Stoppage of transmission without alternative arrangements amounts to unfair trade practice. Network cannot say like ordinary shopkeeper, we will not sell you, do not pay. A person who has been using the cable of particular operator for years, how he can be said all of a sudden change your operator, remove his cable, take fresh cable from other person or do not see our channels. This is all unfair trade practice and monopolistic approach. After all cable network is meant for public service, it is not only for money making. The question is not only of one or two consumers but thousands of consumers are affected in this case. 14. The entire allegations have been made against M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. The parties have tried to show how it has tried to play mischief with the cable operators and the consumers by showing M/s. New Prime Network and M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network as defaulters by entering into the agreement on back date, by raising the subscription fee ex parte, by not issuing a notice of disconnection, etc. M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. is a Public Limited Company. It is not a company of certain individuals to earn profits. It has got international publicity and prestige. It should try to maintain its prestige and dignity and should be fair enough in dealing with the operators and consumers. However we desist from passing any observations against any of the allegations made by the parties. 15. It is not a company of certain individuals to earn profits. It has got international publicity and prestige. It should try to maintain its prestige and dignity and should be fair enough in dealing with the operators and consumers. However we desist from passing any observations against any of the allegations made by the parties. 15. The balance of convenience lies in the fact that the consumers should continue to watch Star Channel as well and if they are not allowed to see it, they shall suffer irreparable injury. We, therefore, direct M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. to continue transmission uninterrupted to each of the bona fide consumers but we refrain from ordering through whom such a transmission shall be given. In this light the order passed by the learned Forum is modified. Our any earlier interim order or order passed by the learned Forum beyond this shall stand confirmed, vacated and modified to the extent of observations as made above. It should be specifically known that our observations above should not be treated as observations on merit on the allegations of either of the parties. We do not say anything in favour of against M/s. New Prime Network, M/s. Uttaranchal Cable Network and M/s. Blue Sky Digital Services. We only want to protect the interest of the consumers and any dispute inter se between operators should be settled by them in the Court or Forum of appropriate jurisdiction. Our orders are limited only to the extent of consumer disputes. All the four revisions are disposed of accordingly. Revision disposed of accordingly. *******