ORDER 1. One of the issues raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that cable operators and MSOs do not give a complete and accurate list of ultimate subscribers and their area of operation. The respondent Sea TV Network Ltd. submitted that it would be in the interest of all concerned to have the details of subscribers of the cable operators correctly identified, provided that such identification is done uniformly and in a nondiscriminatory manner. It was submitted that in the prevalent circumstances, the only manner in which the same can be achieved is through the deployment of an addressable system which is commonly known as the conditional access system (in short "CAS"), which would identify the number of subscribers accessing a particular channel. CAS permits the subscriber to also exercise his choice to have only those pay channels which he chooses to watch. 2. Keeping in view the nature of the controversy and its likely impact on the broadcasting/TV industry as a whole, we are of the view that it would be necessary to give adequate opportunity to all stakeholders concerned to file their submissions. For this purpose, an appropriate advertisement shall be published by TRAI in two leading newspapers as well as on its own website informing the Associations of Cable Operators, MSOs and subscribers of the next date of hearing in this case, which is fixed to 2 - 5 - 2006. 3. It has been brought to our notice that relying on the impugned orders dated 24 - 8 - 2005 and 17 - 1 - 2006 of TOSAT, various petitions are being filed and are pending, seeking similar orders. We feel that it would be appropriate for TOSAT not to pass any final orders in these matters pending further orders of this Court. However, the present arrangement worked out between the appellant Star India Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent Sea TV Network Ltd. shall continue to be operative in terms of the order dated 1 - 2 - 20061. 4. It is brought to our notice that TOSAT is also hearing the question as to the directions which can be given to the Associations of Cable Operators and MSOs for disclosing particulars of their subscribers. 4. It is brought to our notice that TOSAT is also hearing the question as to the directions which can be given to the Associations of Cable Operators and MSOs for disclosing particulars of their subscribers. Pendency of these matters before this Court shall not stand in the way of TOSAT hearing those cases and in fact it would be of assistance to have the views of TOSAT before this Court when the matters are next taken up. Further, pendency of these matters shall not stand in the way of the Central Government if it so chooses, to implement CAS or of TRAI in devising any system to identify and arrive at the correct number of subscribers of each distributor of TV channels. 5. It is made clear that if the matter is not disposed of in the meanwhile by TDSAT, the pendency of that matter shall not be a ground for seeking adjournment in the present appeals. Court Masters