Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1399 (JHR)

Jarina Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2009-11-07

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner, in this writ application is against the purported inaction of the concerned authorities of the State Government to take action against the private Respondent No. 6 for his alleged acts of infringement of the petitioner’s rights. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the petitioner is a registered Cable Network Operator and his area of operation has been categorically demarcated and defined in his Registration Certificate. Learned counsel adds that the Respondent No. 6, being a Cable Network Operator and also possessing a license as a Multi System Operator, has been encroaching upon the petitioner’s area of operation by transmitting signals to consumers through his Cable Network to consumer located within the petitioner’s area of operation and thereby causing detriment to the petitioner’s business, which, according to the counsel for the petitioner, is in violation of the provisions of the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995. Learned counsel submits further, that under the provisions of Section 2 of the Act, the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Commissioner of Police, are the authorized officers competent to exercise powers under the Act and such competence would also extend to the dispute raised by the petitioner against the alleged acts of the private Respondent No. 6. Yet, inspite of repeated complaints made by the petitioner to the Sub-Divisional Officer, no action has been taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Learned counsel adds further that the only possible reason for such inaction on the part of the Administrative Officers is due to their dilemma as to whether they did have the authority under the Act at all to address to the dispute raised by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits further that the petitioner filed an application to the Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi under the Right to Information Act, seeking specific answers to the question as to whether the officers of the District Administration are empowered to take appropriate actions under the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 and by the Reply letter (Annexure-12), the petitioner has been informed by the Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, that the authorized officers, namely, the District Magistrate, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Police Commissioners have been vested with the authority under the Act to exercise powers. Learned counsel submits further that in the light of the above information conveyed by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and also in the light of the provisions as contained in the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995, it is incumbent upon the authorized Officers to take appropriate action on the petitioner’s complaint and to protect the petitioner from infringement of his rights. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 6, on the other hand would vehemently argue that the present writ application is totally not maintainable, in view of the fact that the remedy for the petitioner lies before the Tribunal constituted under the Act. Learned counsel would want to explain that the powers as vested in the authorized officers, namely, the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Officer and the Police Commissioner, is confined only to ensure that the only approved materials are telecast by the Cable Operators and for such purposes, they are empowered to seize the materials, apparatus, and equipments, if it is found that objectionable matters, which have been specifically banned, are being telecast by the cable operator/licensee. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner has filed his complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, against the alleged objectionable acts of the private Respondent No. 6. The complaint as informed, has been referred to, by the Deputy Commissioner, to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who according to the petitioner, has not taken any action nor passed any orders on the petitioner’s complaint presumably on account of the fact that he is not able to assess his powers under the Act. 6. Considering the above submissions, the petitioner shall file a fresh representation before the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district enclosing therewith all the relevant and necessary information including the information obtained from the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting on the query raised by him regarding the powers and the jurisdiction of the District Authorities and within one month from the date of receipt of such representation, and after hearing all the necessary parties including the private Respondent No. 6 involved to the dispute, the concerned authorities of the Respondents shall take a decision on the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order and shall effectively communicate such decision to the parties concerned. 7. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. 8. 7. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. 8. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondents.