Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 67 (PNJ)

Vivek Sharma v. Union of India

2012-01-11

MAHESH GROVER, RANJAN GOGOI

body2012
JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, C.J.(Oral) - This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking appropriate directions from the Court for stopping surrogate advertisements in so far as different liquor products are concerned. According to the petitioner, under the provisions of the Cable T4-vision Networks Rules, 1994 a direct advertisement of cigarettes, tobacco products, wine, alcohol, etc. is prohibited and a product that has the same brand name used by cigarettes, tobacco products, wine, alcohol, etc. can be advertised subject to the conditions prescribed by the Rules. 2. In the instant case, according to the petitioner, by the advertisement which has been brought on record, there has been infringement of the aforesaid provisions of the rules leading to contravention of the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. Hence the Public Interest Litigation seeking appropriate directions from the Court. 3. The provisions of the Act properly read, particularly Sections 16 and 18, would go to show that for any contravention thereof different punishments have been prescribed which can be imposed by a court of law which is empowered to take cognizance of the offence alleged on a complaint in writing made by an authorised officer. 4. The expression authorised officer, is defined by Section 2 (a) of the Act which is extracted herebelow : "authorised officer" means, within his local limits of jurisdiction,- (i) a District Magistrate, or (ii) a Sub-divisional Magistrate, or (iii) a Commissioner of Police, and includes any other officer notified in the Official Gazette, by the Central Government or the State Government, to be an authorised officer for such local limits of jurisdiction as may be determined by that Government;" 5. According to Section 6 of the Act, an advertisement is required to be in conformity with the prescribed advertisement code which has been dealt with by Rule 7 and any violation thereof would amount to contravention of Section 6 of the Act punishable under Section 16. 6. Above being the position in law, we fail to see how any direction as prayed for can be issued in this Public Interest Litigation. If there has been y contravention of the Act by any person, including the private, respondents impleaded herein, the proper course of action would be what is contemplated by Chapter IV of the Act. 7. 6. Above being the position in law, we fail to see how any direction as prayed for can be issued in this Public Interest Litigation. If there has been y contravention of the Act by any person, including the private, respondents impleaded herein, the proper course of action would be what is contemplated by Chapter IV of the Act. 7. There being a complete mechanism to deal with the event of any contravention of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, it is always open for the petitioner to move the authorised officer for taking necessary action in accordance with the Act against such defaulting/erring persons or entities as may be. The petitioner may do so even now if he continues to have any subsisting grievance in the matter. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions we deem it appropriate to dispose of this Public Interest Litigation without making any order as to costs. .