JUDGMENT :- By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 30th May, 2012 passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in Miscellaneous Application No. 207 of 2012 in Petition No. 96(C)/2012 thereby rejecting the prayer for grant of interim orders. It is not in dispute that the controversy between the parties is pending for decision before the Tribunal (hereinafter referred as 'TD SAT" for the sake of brevity). 2. Heard Shri S.V. Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri S.P. Dharn1adhikari, the learned Senior Counsel with Shri D.V Chauhan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. 3. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present petition are as under:- The petitioner is a company duly registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the activity of catering to the needs of the consumers of television networks/various channels and can be termed as engaged in cable business. The petitioner receives signals from various Television Channel Broadcasters and in turn distribute the same to the consumers. The status of the petitioner is as of Multiple System Operator. The terms about the subscription fees etc. are settled between the petitioner and respondent No.2, who is broadcaster, by entering into an agreement dated 30th September, 2010. The period specified between the parties got expired and the petitioner approached the respondent No.2 for continuation of the connectivity of signals. It is the case of respondent No.2 that the period specified under the agreement was expired on 31.12.2011 and in spite of the communications issued to the petitioner to take necessary steps in respect of the payment of the outstanding amount, the petitioner failed to do the same. The grievance of respondent No.2 against the petitioner is two folds. 4. As stated above, the first grievance is about the non payment of the outstanding dues against the petitioner and the second grievance is that the petitioner was providing signals to one Bitto Cable Network. Bitto Cable Network informed respondent No.2 that they had entered into the strategic alliance with the petitioner. It is the case of respondent No.2 that the operators of Bitto Cable Network without executing any agreement with respondent No.2 were providing the signals to those consumers who were outside the area of operation of the petitioner. Bitto Cable Network informed respondent No.2 that they had entered into the strategic alliance with the petitioner. It is the case of respondent No.2 that the operators of Bitto Cable Network without executing any agreement with respondent No.2 were providing the signals to those consumers who were outside the area of operation of the petitioner. In short, it is the grievance of respondent No.2 that the respondent No.2 was put to financial losses because of the non payment of outstanding dues at the hands of the petitioner as well as its activity of providing signals to the operator namely Bitto Cable Network who had no authority in view of the fact that Bitto Cable Network without executing any agreement with respondent No.2 was providing the cable services outside the area of operation of the petitioner through the petitioner. As the respondent No.2 denied to provide the signals to the petitioner, the petitioner, in view of the provisions of The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, preferred Petition No. 90(C)/2012 before the TD SAT, New Delhi. The prayers of the petitioner before the TD SAT are as follows :- "A. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the matter, the Respondent be directed not to disconnect the signals already provided to the Petitioner and to the newly connected LCOs till the disposal of the Petition. B. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the matter, the Respondent be directed not to disturb or harass the Petitioner and the 101 LCOs recently connected with the Petitioner having about total 3925 subscribers (of new LCOs) through the Police Department for violation of Inter connect Agreement. C. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the matter, the Respondent be directed to have meetings with the Petitioner to negotiate the terms and conditions for finalizing the Interconnection Agreements for the revised/present connectivity for the channels of Star Den Media Services Private Ltd. and Zee Turner Ltd. D. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the matter, the Respondent be directed to execute fresh Interconnection Agreements with the Petitioner in respect of revised/present connectivity of channels of Star Den Media Services Private Ltd. and Zee Turner Ltd. for the city of Nagpur. E. Costs of this Petition. F. Any other order deemed fit and proper." 5. E. Costs of this Petition. F. Any other order deemed fit and proper." 5. The petitioner, by presenting MA No. 207/2012, prayed for interim orders seeking direction to respondent No.2 that he be restrained from deactivating the signals in respect of their channels distributed by them in the city of Nagpur as per Subscription Agreement dated 30th September, 2010 and direction to recall the notice issued by respondent No.2 on 18th April, 2012 under Clause 4.1 of the Telecommunications (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2006 and a public notice dated 04th May, 2012 under Clause 4.3 of the Telecommunications (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2006. 6. The learned Tribunal i.e. TD SAT, on considering the prayers made by the petitioner, the counter reply submitted by respondent No.2 and on hearing of the parties, found that the petitioner is not entitled to any order of injunction as prayed in respect of 101 cable operators who have joined the network' of the petitioner with effect from 22.12.2011 (45 cable operators) and from 03.02.2012 (56 cable operators). The learned Tribunal further observed that the petitioner shall continue to have the supply of signals in respect of the channels of respondent No.2 for which the agreements have expired, but still negotiations are being carried out on the premise that by and large except for the payment of the subscription fee for the month of May, 2012 the petitioner appears to have paid the entire outstanding and the petitioner shall also pay the subscription charges for the month of May, 2012 onwards in terms of the existing agreement. 7. The aforesaid order of the TD SAT is under challenge before this Court. Shri S.V. Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently submits that though the 'petition is preferred against an order of the Tribunal and interim order of the Tribunal thereby rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interim orders pending the petition before it, as the Tribunal has not considered the material aspect of the matter, the petitioner has approached this Court against the interim order. The learned Senior Counsel, in an exhaustive argument, by referring to the provisions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 and more particularly to The Telecommunications (Broadcasting Cable and Interconnection) Regulation, 2004, submits that in view of the provisions of this Act, the petitioner was entitled to receive the signals. He further submits that in view of the provisions of clauses namely 3.1 to 3.5, the petitioner ought not to have been denied by respondent No.2 to receive the signals. Shri Manohar, the, learned Senior Counsel further submits that in view of the definition of the above mentioned regulations, respondent No.2 is "Broadcaster"; whereas the petitioner is "Multi System Operator" and respondent No.2 cannot deny signals to the petitioner. The thrust of the argument of Shri Manohar is that the respondent No.2 disconnected to provide signals to the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner indulged in the activity of providing the signals to one Local Cable Operator thereby catering to the needs of the consumers who were outside the area of operation of the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that such denial by respondent No.2 is ousted under clause 3 of Regulations, 2004 so as to prevent a monopoly of a broadcaster. Shri Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner had no concern with the said Bitto Cable Network and the demand of respondent No.2 for payment of outstanding dues of the said Bitto Cable Network from the petitioner is unsustainable. The learned Senior Counsel, in view of the contentions raised by him, submits that these factors are not considered by the learned Tribunal and as such prayed for indulgence by this Court in the order of the learned Tribunal. 8. Per contra, Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that the case of the petitioner is based on wrong premise. He submits that in view of the terms of the agreement between the parties, the specified period permitted the petitioner to supply the cables through respondent No.2 in its area of operation was expired. He submits that in view of the terms of the agreement between the parties, the specified period permitted the petitioner to supply the cables through respondent No.2 in its area of operation was expired. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that in spite of the expiry of the period, it was found by respondent No.2 that the petitioner is not only avoiding to pay the outstanding dues but the petitioner was providing signals through one Bitto Cable Network, a Local Cable Operator to 101 cable operators who without having authorized connectivity through respondent No.2 were operating their cable network through the petitioner and as such the respondent No.2 was put to huge financial losses. 9. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Counsel further submits that the controversy between the parties is pending before the appropriate forum i.e. TD SAT for its decision and the learned Tribunal, by considering the factual aspects of the matter, was not inclined to grant any interim order in favour of the petitioner and rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner. In support of his argument, the learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Asianet Satellite Communications (reported in 2006 (90) DRJ, 193) as well as on one unreported judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Star India P. Ltd. .v. Life Style Communication P. Ltd. (W.P. (C) 9185/ 2007). By placing reliance on the said judgment, he submits that the view taken by the Delhi High Court is squarely applicable to the present case. 10. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that no case is made out by the petitioner for indulgence of this Court, neither on factual aspect nor on the provisions of law. 11. Both the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties have invited my attention to the particular provisions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 and The Telecommunications (Broadcasting Cable and Interconnection) Regulation, 2004. 12. With the assistance of the learned Senior Counsel, I have gone through the relevant provisions as well as the judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 in detail. 13. 12. With the assistance of the learned Senior Counsel, I have gone through the relevant provisions as well as the judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 in detail. 13. On considering the various aspects, I am of the opinion that though the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Shri Manohar looks attractive at the first blush, I am unable to accept the same for the reasons discussed hereinafter. 14. Shri S.Y. Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel by placing heavy reliance on Clause 3 of the Regulations of 2004, submits that the respondent No.2 could not have denied signals to the petitioner. He further submits that Clause 3 is the scheme which provides non discriminatory treatment to Multi System Operator. Before considering Clause 3, it will be necessary to have a look on the definitions of term "Broadcaster" and "Multi System Operation" which are defined in the said Regulations- "(e) "broadcaster" means any person including an individual, group of persons, public or body corporate, firm or any organization or body who/which is providing broadcasting service and includes his/her authorised distribution agencies. (m) "multi system operator" means any person who receives a broadcasting service from a broadcaster and/or their authorized agencies and retransmits the same to consumers and/or retransmits the same to one or more cable operators and includes his/her authorised distribution agencies." 15. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is Multi System Operator; whereas respondent No.2 is Broadcaster as per these definitions. Shri Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel further submits that in view of clause 3, the ground taken by respondent No.2 for disconnecting the signals to the petitioner that the petitioner is operating service beyond its area of operation is unsustainable. He submits that there cannot be any restriction for the petitioner for operating the cable service in a particular area and the petitioner can operate its business as Multi System Operator to an unlimited area. 16. For considering the arguments of Shri Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel, it will be necessary to have a look at Clause 3.2. He submits that there cannot be any restriction for the petitioner for operating the cable service in a particular area and the petitioner can operate its business as Multi System Operator to an unlimited area. 16. For considering the arguments of Shri Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel, it will be necessary to have a look at Clause 3.2. Clause 3.2 reads thus : "3.2 Every broadcaster shall provide on request signals of its TV channels on nondiscriminatory terms to all distributors of TV channels, which may include, but be not limited to a cable operator, direct to home operator, multi system operator, head ends in the sky operator; Multi system operators shall also on request 'retransmit signals received from a broadcaster, on a nondiscriminatory basis to cable operators." 17. The first argument of the learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar that the broadcaster is duty bound to provide signals to the multi system operator cannot be accepted in view of the provision which is referred above and the important aspect of the said clause 3.2 is that the multi system operator shall make a request to the broadcaster for receiving signals. In view of this clause, it is more than clear that it is not the case as Shri Manohar tried to submit that the Broadcaster is duty bound to supply signals to each and every multi system operator but the broadcaster can provide the signals on request of multi system operator and in turn the multi system operator can retransmit the signals to the cable operator. The said clause provides further a stipulation namely, "provided that this provision shall not apply in the case of distributor of TV channels having defaulted in payment." It is a specific case of respondent No.2 that there was an agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.2 for providing the signals for a stipulated period and the petitioner by committing breach of terms of agreement, provided signals to its consumers as well to some other local cable operators without payment of dues outstanding against him. Thus, the petitioner was distributor having default in payment. 18. Though the learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar submits that the petitioner has no concern with the local cable operator, namely, Bitto Cablc Network, it is the case of respondent No.2 that the local cable operator, namely, Bitto Cable Network had strategical alliance with the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was distributor having default in payment. 18. Though the learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar submits that the petitioner has no concern with the local cable operator, namely, Bitto Cablc Network, it is the case of respondent No.2 that the local cable operator, namely, Bitto Cable Network had strategical alliance with the petitioner. These arc certainly the disputed facts and as such this Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot go into these disputed facts. 19. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar that the petitioner is entitled to operate its business of distributing channels to unlimited area also cannot be accepted for the reasons, namely, the petitioner itself has admitted in the petition that the petitioner has entered into subscription agreements with Zee Turner Limited on 30.09.20 10 and also with Star Den Media Systems Pvt. Ltd. on 27.04.2011 and the area of operation of these agreements was the main city of Nagpur. The agreement between the parties is also placed on record. In the said agreement, a reference is made to area specified. In the said clause of the agreement under the caption of area specified, there is reference to various localities and it is further referred that limited to areas in SLR attached in Annexure-I. Annexure-I to the said agreement refers to the list of the cable operators and their areas as well connections attached to these cable operators. It is the case of respondent No.2 that the petitioner was expected to operate its business only to the areas specified under the terms of agreement and those terms of agreement were duly consented by the parties and the petitioner by providing signals to the other local cable networks expanded its area which was clearly in breach of terms of agreement. The communication which is placed on record at "Annexure-B" from the petitioner to respondent No.2 is a request for revised area of operation in Nagpur city which indicates that the petitioner itself has agreed to operate its business in particular area of Nagpur city and subsequently is making request for the revised area. In view of this fact also, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner is entitled to operate its business for unlimited and unrestricted area holds no water. In view of this fact also, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner is entitled to operate its business for unlimited and unrestricted area holds no water. The perusal of the agreement further shows that under the terms of agreement in clause "area" are as follows" AREA: ‘Area’ shall mean the areas within which the Affiliate is authorized in terms of this Agreement, to distribute the Subscribed Channels to the Subscribers through the Distribution System as detailed in Applicable Annexure-B: The Affiliate cannot extend the Area beyond to that agreed hereof in writing between the Parties. Violation of this clause shall be a material breach of this Agreement and the Affiliate shall be deemed to have unauthorized access to the signals of the Subscribed Channels and STAR DEN shall have the right to terminate the Agreement and disconnect the signals of the Subscribed Channels to the Distribution System of the Affiliate. In addition to any other legal or equitable remedies available to it." 20. In view of these peculiar facts, it is difficult to accept the submissions of Shri S.Y. Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to operate its business without having any limits on the area to be certified by the respondent No.2. 21. Shri S.P. Dhannadhikari, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner is in default and the dispute between the parties is pending consideration of the Special Forum provided under the Act namely TD SAT. He further submits that the learned Tribunal on consideration of the facts found that the petitioner is not entitled for any interim order as the petitioner is in default. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that in view of the controversy which is pending decision before the learned Tribunal and in view of the fact that the prayer for interim order is rejected by the learned Tribunal, no indulgence be shown by this Court. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Counsel submits that in similar set of facts, the Delhi High Court in the case of Star India Pvt. Ltd. v.v. Asianet Satellite Communications (cited supra) held that when it is shown that the order of Tribunal is not suffering from perversity and unreasonableness, interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction by High Court in the interim order is not cal1ed for. This view is reiterated in another unreported judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Star India P. Ltd. v. Life Style Communication P. Ltd. (cited supra). It will be necessary to refer to the relevant observation of the Delhi High Court in the case of Star India P. Ltd. v. Life Style Communication P. Ltd. (cited supra) which reads thus :- "The Tribunal is invested with the power to adjudicate disputes, as an exclusive quasi judicial body. It has gathered some institutional expertise; indeed its membership is also geared to facilitate the specialized dispute adjudication which it has to engage in. Judicial review, under Article 226, has to be understood within the overall structural parameters of its original dispute resolving task. If one keeps in mind the circumstance that the impugned order is an interim one, the jurisdiction of this court gets even more circumscribed, as it were." 22. I find considerable merit in the submission of Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2. On giving anxious consideration to the points raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and in view of the submission as well as the provisions of the Act and in view of the judgments referred above, I am of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case in which this Court can show indulgence in the interim order, dated 30th May, 2012 passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appel1ate Tribunal, New Delhi, in Miscellaneous Application No. 207 of 2012 in Petition No. 96(C)/20 12 thereby rejecting the prayer for grant of interim orders. It is not in dispute that the main controversy and dispute between the parties is pending decision before the learned Tribunal. 23. The petition is thus devoid of merits and deserves no interference and is dismissed as such. Petition dismissed.