Harsh Communication vs Indiacast Media Distribution Pvt Ltd

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent in respect of prayers made in M. A. No. 115 of 2021 preferred by

the petitioner. The prayers in the MA are as follows :

 (a)  Allow the present Application filed by the Applicant / Petitioner;

 (b) Direct the Respondent to allow expansion of territory under Regulation 11(2) of the TRAI Interconnection Regulations on immediate basis, to

whole of Gujarat and to accordingly amend the agreements executed by the Respondent on behalf of the Broadcasters;

 (c) Direct the Respondent to allow offering of channel of the  Broadcasters on a-la-carte in accordance to the  TRAI Interconnection

Regulations;

(d) Pass any other or further relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case in  favour of the Petitioner

and against the Respondent.

The aforesaid prayers are different than those in the main petition but the materials on record show that since about one year petitioner has been

requesting the respondent to allow expansion of territory to whole of Gujarat and to amend the agreements accordingly.

The petitioner and the respondent have exchanged e-mails after the recent audit report was shared with the parties on or about 31.3.2021. Prior

to the audit, as per respondent, the petitioner’s system was non-compliant with Schedule-III of the relevant Regulations leading to dis-satisfaction

and a notice for disconnection, which is the subject matter of the main petition. However, the parties have exchanged e-mails after the audit

andthere does not appear, so far any fresh grievance against the petitioner’s system post audit. Of course, respondent is yet to file its

response and will be at liberty to bring on record all the relevant materials even for the period post audit. But today the respondent is only

contemplating to hold an audit at its own instance under Regulation 15(2). The demand for the same has not been made as yet. It goes without

saying that respondent, if so advised, can make a demand for holding audit under Regulation 15(2) but during the prevailing situation of pandemic, this

course of action is likely to take some time. Hence, in the interest of justice and subject to adjustment of equity later, if required, petitioner and the

respondent will take required steps to enable the petitioner, by way of interim arrangement, an expansion of its territory to whole of Gujarat. The

agreements executed between the parties shall be amended/deemed to be amended accordingly until further orders. This interim arrangement shall

not be treated as a precedent because it is on account of prevailing pandemic that the respondent has been given liberty to proceed with its own audit

at a convenient date. The interim order may be re-considered after the receipt of materials, which the respondent may produce.

Â

The petitioner is expected to discuss and try its best to resolve the earlier issues between the parties which led to holding of audit referred to

earlier. The outcome of the talks for settlement should also be brought on record before the next date.

The interim relief granted to the petitioner was opposed by learned counsel for the respondent but as indicated above, the interim arrangement has

been passed in the peculiar facts of the case and the situation prevailing today. It will be open for the respondent to file not only its response to the

audit report but also the reply to the M. A. No. 115 of 2021 before the next date.

Post the matter under the head “for directionsâ€​ on 6.7.2021.