1. Heard Mr. K.N. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs and Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the proforma respondent No. 8. 2. Both the parties are not disputing the nature and types of the disputes to be decided by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. For ready reference section 14 of the TRAI Act are quoted below : - "14. Establishment of Appellate Tribunal. - The Central Government shall, by notification, establish an Appellate Tribunal to be known as the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal to - (a) adjudicate any dispute - (i) between a licensor and a licensee ; (ii) between two or more service providers ; (iii) between a service provider and a group of consumers : Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply in respect of matters relating to - (A) the monopolistic trade practice, restrictive trade practice and unfair trade practice which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission established under sub­section (1) of Section 5 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (54 of 1969); (B) the complaint of an individual consumer maintainable before a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or the National Consumer Redressal Commission established under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986); (C) dispute between telegraph authority and any other person referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885)." 3. Mr. K.N. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel strenuously contends that the defendant, Rangapara Cable TV Network, Rangapara, represented by the defendant No. 2 is a service provider defined in section 2(1)0') of the TRAI Act. It means the Government as a service provider and also include licensee. Further, "Telecommunication Services" are also defined in section 2(1)(k) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. By Act No. 2 of 2000 a proviso had been inserted to 2(1)(k) of the TRAI Act 1997 (24 of 1997). Under the said newly inserted proviso to section, 2(1)(k) of the Act 1997, the Central Government may notify other services to be telecommunication Services including the Broadcasting Services. By Act No. 2 of 2000 a proviso had been inserted to 2(1)(k) of the TRAI Act 1997 (24 of 1997). Under the said newly inserted proviso to section, 2(1)(k) of the Act 1997, the Central Government may notify other services to be telecommunication Services including the Broadcasting Services. Admittedly, the Ministry of Communication and the Information Technology issued the S.O. No. 44(E), dated 9.1.2004 that Broadcasting service and the cable service to be Telecommunication service. "Service Provider" is also defined in regulation 2(n) of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation, 2004, it means "the Government as a service provider include a licensee as well as any broadcaster, multi-system operator, cable operator or distributor of TV channels." 4. Admittedly, in the plaint of the Title Suit No. 76 of 2006 in the Court of Munsiff at Tezpur, respondents-plaintiffs categorically pleaded that the plaintiff No. 1 is doing the business of cable network and giving satellite connection to the people and providing sub-lines to the other parties within the area of Rangapara. In other words, the plaintiff No. 1 is also rendering Telecommunication service which include the cable operator and cable services under the said S.O. No. 44(E) dated 9.1.2004 issued by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology. The respondent-plaintiff No. 1 is the only authorized dealer who is licensed to broadcast/show/telecast/transmit the banquets of pay channels of the present petitioner-proforma defendant within Rangapara area by paying proper fees/rent, etc., etc. The defendant No. 1, Rangapara Cable T.V. Network without any authority and valid permission most illegally and unauthorisedly distributed leaflets that Rangapara Cable T.V. Network is going to a grand opening with 70 most popular channels from 16.8.2006 within Rangapara area. Therefore, there is a dispute between the respondents-plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1, Rangapara Cable T.V. Network. Section 15 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 bar the Civil court from entertaining any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the appellate authority is empowered by or under this Act to determine and also that no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. For ready reference, Section 15 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 is quoted hereunder : - "15. For ready reference, Section 15 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 is quoted hereunder : - "15. Civil court not to have jurisdiction. - No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter, which the Appellate Tribunal is, empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under I his Act." 5. This settled position of law is nut disputed by both the parties. Coming back in the present case, this court is to see whether the defendant No. 1, Rangapara Cable TV Network, Rangapara is a cable operator or/service provider. Mr. K.N. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken this court to the written statement dated 13.12.2006 filed by the defendants and also the documents filed by the defendants in support of their case. For ready reference, para No. 11 of the written statement of the defendants is quoted hereunder : - "That the answering defendants deny the averments as contained in paragraph No. 3 of the plaint. The plaintiffs are not the only authorized dealer who is licensed to broadcast/show/air/telecast the bauquet of pay channels of the pro forma defendants. In fact the answering defendants and their firm Rangapara Cable TV Network is also equally and legally authorized to carry the business of broadcasting, showing, telecasting the free as well as the pay channels of the pro forma defendants. For this purpose the answering defendant No. 3 has obtained a valid licensed from the authorities concerned for running a cable television network in Rangapara area." 6. On hare perusal of the para No. 11 of the written statement quoted above and also the documents annexed to the written statement in support of the fact mentioned in para No. 11 of the written statement, it appears that the defendant No. 1, Rangapara Cable TV Network is a cable operator or/service provider registered under Section 4 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. 7. Having regard to the facts discussed above, the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff for settlement of the disputes of the present nature is to approach the appellate Tribunal established under section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. 7. Having regard to the facts discussed above, the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff for settlement of the disputes of the present nature is to approach the appellate Tribunal established under section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. Accordingly, the plaintiff is directed to approach the appellate Tribunal constituted under section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. 8. For the reasons discussed above, the Title Suit No. 76 of 2006 of the Court of Munsiff, Tezpur is barred by section 15 of the TRAI Act, 1997. Accordingly, plaint of the T.S. No.76 of 2006 is rejected.