TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT &
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
Dated 4th December, 2009
Petition No.129(C) of 2009
M/s Friends Cables
Through its Proprietor
Mr.S.N. Pandiarajan
D-7/W-8, Alagarsamy Kovil
Street
Gudalur – 625 518
Theni District
Tamil Nadu …..Petitioner
Versus
Star Den Media Services
Pvt.Ltd.
Through its Director
15, Jagannathan Road
Nungambakkam
Chennai – 600 034 ….Respondent
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA,
CHAIRPERSON
HON’BLE MR. G. D. GAIHA, MEMBER
|
For
Petitioner |
: |
Mr.Jayant Mehta,
Advocate |
|
For
Respondent |
: |
Mr.Gopal
Jain, Advocate Mr.Gaurav
Juneja, Advocate |
JUDGEMENT
S.B. Sinha
The petitioner is a Multi-System
Operator (MSO) and, inter alia, is engaged in the business of reception and
distribution of satellite television to its local cable operators. It is a registered cable operator for the
town of Gudalur being registration No.168 issued by the Post Master,
Bodinayakanur Head Post Office.
The respondent is a broadcaster. It has been providing signals for Vijay TV,
Star Movies and National Geographic Channels.
2. It
is not in controversy that the petitioner was a regular subscriber of the
respondent. Its customer ID was
10004132. It has been paying its
subscription charges through the distributor of the respondent, namely, TVRO
System, Madurai. Although, the agreement
between the parties was to expire in December, 2006, the respondents switched
off the signals of the petitioner in November, 2006. The petitioner contends that it had been
requesting the respondent for activation of its signals but no response thereto
was received by it.
It, in the aforementioned
circumstances, approached the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) by a
letter dated 18.08.2006 which reads as under:
“My Customer Type CATV Customers Code 9010018799 for
Zee Turner. I paid the monthly dues
properly. The agreement signed copy from
16.09.2006 to 15.09.2007 enclosed. I was
renewal my agreement and activate the channels.
If there is any dues in it I will pay.
Here
I am enabling my postal licence Xerox.
A
copy of the said letter was marked to the respondent.
The Authority, however, by its letter
dated 22.12.2008 opined that it was unable to take any action on the said
complaint as the petitioner had not disclosed any specific instance of
violation of the tariff order specified therein or the Regulations framed by it.
In
view of the fact that despite several requests, the respondent failed and/or refused
to supply signals of Vijay TV, Star Movies and National Geographic Channels to
the petitioner, it has approached this Tribunal praying, inter alia, for the
following reliefs:
“A. direct the
Respondent to provide and activate the signals of Vijay TV, Star Movies and
National Geographic channels to the Petitioner in accordance with Regulation
3.2 of the Interconnect Regulations.
B. direct
the Respondent to renew the subscription Agreement between the parties on
mutually agreed terms and conditions and further direct that duly counter
signed copy of such an agreement be provided to the Petitioner;”
3. The
respondent in its reply, inter alia, contended:
(i)
The
petitioner admittedly was a defaulter as in the petition itself it has accepted
that a sum of Rs.10,082/- was payable to it.
In fact, a sum of Rs.45,793.55p was due and owing from the petitioner.
(ii)
The
petitioner being a defaulter in terms of clause 3.2 of the Telecommunication
(Broadcasting & Cable Services) Interconnection Regulations, it is not
entitled to any relief.
(iii)
It
has not complied with the requirements of clause 9 of the interconnection
agreement.
4. Before,
however, we advert to the rival contentions of the parties, we may notice some
developments during pendency of this proceeding.
It appears from the order-sheet dated
15.07.2009 that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent
in the meanwhile. However, the counsel
for the respondent contended that the amount outstanding from the petitioner is
Rs.57,793/- and thus, a sum of Rs.47,793/- was still due.
5. From
the order-sheet dated 01.10.2009, it appears that this Tribunal noticed that
the petitioner’s request for supply of signals had not been acceded to by the
respondent. It is in the aforementioned
situation this Tribunal noticed:-
“The counsel for
respondent further submits that the details as on date, which are required for
providing fresh signals, have not yet been furnished by the petitioner to the
respondent. Counsel for the respondent states
that the application form, for asking signals, has already been sent to the
petitioner by the respondent alongwith letter dated 28.07.2009. Counsel for the petitioner contests this
statement of the counsel for the respondent.
Counsel for respondent states that another copy of application form will
be handed over to the petitioner on 05.10.2009.
Counsel for the petitioner submits, on instructions from his client, who
is present during the hearing, that the petitioner will fill up the application
and submit the same to the respondent by 07.10.2009. Counsel for the respondent assures that the
application of the petitioner will be examined within one week’s time after its
receipt.
A provisional payment of
Rs.47,793.58 vide cheque dated 07.10.2009, as demanded by the respondent being
outstanding amount has been handed over by the counsel for the petitioner to
the counsel for the respondent in the court.
The counsel for petitioner submits that this payment is without any
prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner and subject to
adjustment.”
From the order-sheet dated 27.10.2009, it furthermore appears that
certain disputes remained between the parties in regard to furnishing of some
informations by the petitioner as desired by the respondent.
One of us (Mr.G.D. Gaiha, Member)
observed:-
“I think this case is a fit case, in which a meeting
between the parties will be useful. Let
the meeting between the parties take place at Chennai office of the respondent
on 02.11.2009 at 11.00 AM to sort out the issues amicably. In case, the issues are settled in the
meeting, the signals should be provided to the petitioner forthwith by the
respondent.”
However, before us on
10.11.2009, the learned counsel for the parties stated that no settlement could
be arrived at.
6. Mr.Vikas
Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner urged:
(i)
The
petitioner being not a stranger to the respondent, the attitude on its part to
demand documents/informations at various stages must be held to be
malafide.
(ii)
The
petitioner although, owed to the respondent only a sum of Rs.10,000/-, it had
paid the entire amount as was demanded by it from time to time.
Our attention in this behalf has been
drawn to a letter dated 25.12.2006 issued by Orbit Turo System, which is stated
to be the distributor of the respondent and addressed to the petitioner which reads
as under:
“As
your account total amount of debit balance is as per October statement is
Rs.63,652 (Rs.63652) given by us
Total amount 63652
(06) October Received 10000
_________
53652
Less Hungama amount 23570.40 (1683 x 14)
_________
30,082
_________
The total balance 30,082 is a
debit as on December 06.
Received Hungama & Histort channels boxes on good
condition from Mr.Pandirajan.”
The said amount of Rs.30,082/- has
been paid by the petitioner in the following manner:
(i) Payment
of Rs.10,000/- on 25.12.2006
(ii) Payment
of Rs.10,000/- by cheque No.5755997 dated 26.6.2007
(iii) Payment
of Rs.10,082/- by cheque No.002533 dated 8.7.2009.
(iii) Knowing fully well that the petitioner was
an MSO and had been asking for grant of signals directly, the purported
objection that the same is impermissible in law must be held to be without any
basis in view of the decision of this Tribunal in Ortel Communications Ltd. Vs.
Yashoda Enterprises (Petition No.141(C) of 2008) disposed of on 21.10.2008
which has since been affirmed by the Supreme Court of India.
The
petitioner although had been obtaining supply of signals from one Akash Cable,
another MSO, it has discontinued the same and as such the respondent’s
contention that it should continue to obtain signals from the same MSO must be
held to be wholly misconceived.
(iv) The respondent even in subsequent meetings
with the petitioner having fixed the subscription fee for a sum of Rs.30,000/-
per month for all its channels, although the petitioner is not interested in
receiving channels of Hungama and History, the action on its part must be held
to be unfair. The terms of the agreement
should have been fixed by the respondent having regard to the said factor. The petitioner has not withheld any document
whatsoever as would appear from the fact that the respondent has not pointed
out as to which documents asked for by it from the petitioner have not been
supplied.
7. Mr.Gopal
Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand,
submitted:
(i)
The
subscription agreement having expired in November, 2006, the prayer of the
petitioner for renewal thereof is not maintainable.
(ii)
In
terms of the interconnect regulations, the petitioner being entitled only to
ask for a new connection, it was bound to comply with the requirements of
Regulation 9 of the Interconnect Regulations.
(iii)
The
petitioner being an admitted defaulter at least for a sum of Rs.10,000/- it
could not take recourse to clause 3.2 of the Regulations and thus, as on the
date of the filing of the application, the petition was not maintainable.
(iv)
The
petitioner having approached the TRAI for redressal of its grievances and the
same having been denied to it, this application on the original side of this
Tribunal must be held to be not maintainable.
8. The
question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the
petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case is entitled to any
relief?
9. The
TRAI(Authority) in exercise of its powers, inter alia, conferred upon it by
Section 36 of the TRAI Act, framed Regulations called “The Telecommunication
(Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation, 2003”
(hereinafter called for the sake of gravity as ‘Regulation’). It was amended in the year 2006.
Clause 2(p) of the Regulation define
subscriber as under:-
“(p) “subscriber base” means the number of
subscribers –
(i) as agreed to by
two service providers in a non-addressable system on the basis of which payments
are made by one service provider to the other, or
(ii) as reflected by
the Subscriber Management System, where addressable systems are employed.
Clause
2(q) of the Regulation define Subscriber Lines Report or SLR as under:-
“(q) “subscriber line
report” or “SLR” means a monthly statement wherein, in a non-addressable
system, a multi system operator and a cable operator agree upon the subscriber
base for that month.
Clause 3.2 of the Regulation reads as
under:-
“3.2 Every broadcaster shall provide on request
signals of its TV channels on non-discriminatory 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 re-transmit signals received from a
broadcaster, on a non-discriminatory basis to cable operators.
Provided
that this provision shall not apply in the case of a distributor of TV channels
having defaulted in payment.
Provided further that any imposition of
terms which are unreasonable shall be deemed to constitute a denial of
request.”
Clause 9 of the said Regulation reads
as follows:
“9. Finalising Subscriber Base at the time of
first agreement
First agreement between
Multi System Operator and Cable Operator
9.1 In non-addressable systems, while executing
an interconnection agreement for the first time between a multi system operator
and a cable operator, the parties to the agreement shall take into account the
subscriber base of the cable operator on the basis of the Subscriber Line
Report (SLR) where such SLR exists. Where such SLR does not exist, this shall
be negotiated on the basis of the evidence provided by the two parties on the
subscriber base, including the subscriber base of similarly placed cable
operators and local survey.
Explanation
The Subscriber Line Report (SLR) is only an indicative basis for
arriving at the subscriber base and the subscriber base as mutually agreed by
the two parties could be more than or less than the number indicated by the
SLR.
First agreement between
Multi System Operator and Broadcaster
9.2 In non-addressable systems, while executing
an interconnection agreement for the first time between a multi system operator
and a broadcaster, the multi system operator shall furnish a list of the cable
operators who will be getting signals from its network along with their
subscriber base. The parties to the agreement shall take into account the
subscriber base of cable operators connected to the multi system operator while
negotiating the subscriber base of the multi system operator. For the consumers
proposed to be directly served by the multi system operator, the procedure as
laid down in sub-clause 9.1 of this regulation shall be followed.”
Although existence or validity of the
said Regulation is not in question, applicability thereof arises for our
consideration. There cannot be any doubt
or dispute that an agreement comes to an end on the expiry of its tenure. However, it is possible for the parties to
renew the said agreement even after lapse of some period and give the same a
retrospective effect and retroactive operation.
10. Mr.Gopal
Jain has produced before us an order dated 13.07.2007 of this Tribunal passed in
Petition No.105(C) of 2007 (Studio 57, Ahmedabad Vs. Star India Pvt.Ltd.) wherein
it was opined:-
“By this petition, the petitioner prays for a
direction to the respondent to renew the subscription agreement and restore
signals of Star Channels. The agreement
between the parties came to an end on 31.12.06.
Thereafter there is no agreement.
Therefore, we cannot issue such direction. The petitioner has to approach the respondent
in accordance with regulations and negotiate for the purpose of a fresh
agreement for present. Let the
petitioner take steps accordingly and the respondent will consider the
application the petitioner, if made, for this purpose expeditiously.”
11. We,
however, are not aware as to the factual matrix involved in the said matter. In fact, the general legal principle applied
therein may not be in dispute. We, in
this petition, are however, dealing with a different fact situation. The respondent is said to have disconnected
supply of signals on 06.11.2006, although the agreement was to expire in
December, 2006. If the petitioner is
right in its contention that the respondent’s action was malafide in view of
the fact that despite several requests it had not been granting direct
connection to it, in our opinion a separate approach is required for resolution
of the dispute. It is true that the
petitioner did not pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent, but it must also
be noticed that no evidence was produced to prove as to whether for the said purpose an invoice
was served upon the petitioner or not.
12. Regulations
framed by the Authority in the year 2003 and as amended in the year 2006
mandate the broadcaster not only issue to invoices every month but also to
prove that the same had been served upon the MSOs before an action in terms of
the Regulation can be taken.
13. Be
that as it may, the petitioner indisputably has been requesting the respondent
to grant direct connection. It is
possible that, it in the meanwhile, have been obtaining signals from another
MSO, namely, M/s Akash Cable. The
respondent, in law, however, cannot refuse to grant direct signals to an MSO
asking for the same for more than one reason:
(a) Because
it is the mandate of the regulations;
(b) The Supreme Court of India in Star TV (P)
Ltd. Vs. Sea TV Network Ltd. – 2007(4) SCC held as under:-
“15.3 The difficulty arises when the broadcaster as in the present case
appoints or enters into an agreement with a distributor, who in turn is an MSO
and who in turn has his own business because in such a case such an agent-cum-distributor
is also a competitor of the MSO who seeks signals from the broadcaster. We are
living in a competitive world today. If under the Interconnection Regulations
an MSO is entitled to receive signals directly from a broadcaster, if directed to
approach his competitor MSO then, discrimination comes in. The reason is
obvious. The exclusive agent of a broadcaster has his own subscriber base. His
base is different from another MSO in the same territory. If that another MSO
has to depend on the Feed to be provided by the exclusive agent of the
broadcaster then the very object of the Interconnection Regulation stands
defeated.”;
(c) This Tribunal in Ortel Communications Ltd.
Vs. Yashoda Enterprises (Petition No.141(C) of 2008) in its order dated 21.10.2008
held as under:-
“10. During the
course of arguments, the counsel for Respondents raised the issue whether the
interpretation sought to be given by the Petitioner would not result in a
situation where every local cable operator would seek signals directly from the
broadcasters. It should be pointed out that this situation already exists. Not
only do some local cable operators seek signals directly from the broadcasters
but more importantly, this is what is done by the DTH operators and Head ends in
the sky (HITS) operators. These entities receive signals directly from the
broadcasters and retransmit the same to the consumers directly. They are
covered under the term ‘distributor of TV channels’. What is important is their
ability to receive signals directly from the broadcaster and retransmit the
same. DTH and HITS systems operate in an
addressable mode. On the other hand, in a non-addressable system, if most local
cable operators do not receive signals directly from the broadcasters but from
an MSO, it is not because of any restriction in the Regulations or even
technology but because of the investment involved in being able to receive
signals directly from a broadcaster in digital mode and converting them into
analogue mode for retransmission to consumers. It is because of this inability
to invest that most cable operators receive the signals from an intermediary
viz., MSO in an analogue mode. It is evidently the reason why the term ' local
cable operator', which is widely used commercially, does not find a place in
the definitions. A practice, albeit common, necessitated by commercial
considerations, need not and should not, in our view, become a legal
requirement. We accordingly do not agree with the view that a multi system
operator is one who receives signals from the broadcaster and retransmits the
same to one or more local cable operators. What is important is the ability to
receive signals of TV channels from the broadcaster and retransmit the same to
the consumers directly or indirectly, including through local cable operators.”
It was furthermore held -
“11. The
counsel for Petitioner drew our attention to the recommendation said to have
been made by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on 15.7.2008 to
redefine the term multi-system operator (MSO) to mean any person who manages
and operates a multisystem cable television network to provide cable television
service to one/multiple local cable TV operator (s) or to any other
distribution platform permitted and licensed by the government. Admittedly,
this is only a recommendation supposed to have been made by TRAI and needless to say, requires
examination and decision by the competent authority. Even as on today, let
alone on the date of application of the Petitioner to the Respondent or even on
the date of filing this petition, the definitions cited in para 6 above hold
ground and only they can be the basis for consideration and decision in this
case. We therefore hold that this contention of the Respondent is inadmissible. Outside the framework of this case, it
appears to us that the proposal to redefine the term ‘multi system operator’,
if true, would warrant a careful
examination by the appropriate authority as it has the potential of mandating a
hierarchy and bringing in rigidity in a scenario of evolving technology, and
possibly adding to the costs.”
The judgment of this Tribunal is said
to have been upheld by the Supreme Court of India.
Indisputably, ordinarily Regulation 9
would be applicable in terms whereof an MSO is bound to provide informations to
the broadcaster with regard to (i) exact area to prove franchises and linkage
thereof with cable operator; (ii) the
number of subscribers; (iii) SLR for the number of existing relationship or for
local survey and (iv) for the purpose of direct payment.
Here, however, the agreement between
the parties was not the first one.
Moreover, the parties themselves during pendency of these proceedings
have entered into negotiations for the purpose of entering into an
agreement. We are informed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that it not only had supplied all requisite
informations including the number of subscribers but also filled up the
agreement form. In the above situation,
in our considered view it could be wholly improper to push the petitioner to
another round of litigation.
14. Mr.Jain,
however, has drawn our attention to the existing agreement to contend that the
box in page 2 thereof has not been filled and no plan as is required, has been
supplied.
From the agreement it appears that
all primary informations relevant for the purpose of entering into an agreement
between a broadcaster and an MSO have been supplied.
The
petitioner contends that it would not be liable to pay service tax. So far as the necessity to submit a plan is
concerned, it appears that the name of the MSOs and the respective areas where
they have been serving has been indicated by providing some boxes (apparently
to show different parts of the town in question). However, the learned counsel for the
petitioner states that a plan shall be supplied.
15. Our
attention has been drawn to a letter dated 21.10.2009, paras (ii) and (v)
whereof read as under:
“(ii) We
further wish to draw your attention to page 6 of your Letter wherein you have
indicated ‘Friends Cable’ as one of the proposed area of operation. In this regard we request you to please
clarify the area that has been signified by you as ‘Friends Cable’.
(v) Copy
of latest monthly invoice showing dues (if any) from the presently/ latest
affiliated MSO has not be furnished by you.
In light of the above, we would request you to
immediately furnish us abovementioned details and/ or documents so as to
ascertain veracity of you claim and also to determine whether signals can be
provided directly by STAR DEN or not.”
Our attention has also been drawn to
a letter dated 05.11.2009, para 2 as also the operative part thereof read as
under:
“2. Despite
our repeated requests, you failed to furnish/disclose your area wise subscriber
list during the Meeting. We made it very
clear to you that in the absence of detailed information regarding the names of
the cable operators who will be getting signals from your network along with
their subscriber bases as stipulated in clause 9 of the TRAI’s Interconnection
Regulation dated 04.09.2006 (“Regulations”), it would not be possible to
commence negotiations.”
In
the light of the above, we request you to:
(i)
Clarify whether
you are interest to take a feed from said Akash Cable or from us directly;
(ii)
Provide us with
subscriber information as stipulated in Clause 9 of the Regulations well in
advance, in case you want to take feed from us directly.”
So far as the paragraph 2 of the
above letter is concerned, in our opinion the same is wholly irrelevant as the
petitioner in no uncertain terms had been informing the respondent that no
other MSO should come in between the petitioner and the respondent as it would
take signals from the respondent directly.
In that view of the matter, the first request in the operative part of
the letter may also be held to be irrelevant.
So far as the request No.2 is
concerned, again the petitioner had all along been making its position clear.
16. It
is true that ordinarily in a civil suit a plaintiff is granted a relief as was
available to him to the date of institution of the suit. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal having
regard to the provisions contained in Sections 14 and 14A of the TRAI Act must
be held to be somewhat different than an ordinary civil court. Any decision rendered by the Tribunal
ultimately may affect the consumers.
This Tribunal, therefore, while granting reliefs to the petitioner would
be entitled to not only consider the issues between the parties keeping in view
their respective claims and counter-claims but also the interest of the
consumers as also the public interest.
Even, under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 the Civil Courts would be entitled to take in consideration the
subsequent events having regards to the provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 7
thereof which reads as under:-
“7. Relief to be specifically stated –
Every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims
either simply or in the alternative, and it shall not be necessary to ask for
general or other relief which may always be given as the Court may thinks just
to the same extent as if it had been asked for.
And the same rule shall apply to any relief claimed by the defendant in
his written statement.”
The Supreme Court of India in Shiv
Kumar Sharma Vs. Santosh Kumari - AIR 2008 SC 171 observed as under:
“No doubt, the court in an appropriate case, even in a
civil suit may mould a relief
but its jurisdiction in this behalf would be confined to Order VII, Rule 7 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. [See Bay Berry
Apartments Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. v. Shobha and Ors. 2006(10) SCALE 596 and U.P.
State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Anr.v. Udai Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479].”
In that case relief of damages have
not been claimed in the suit although was available to it and, therefore, in Shiv
Kumar(supra) it was found that reliefs could not have been moulded.
17. Reliefs
are required to be granted to one party or to the other not only keeping in
view the materials brought on records by them but also the subsequent event as
also their conduct.
18. The
petitioner paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent which was accepted by
him without any demur. It also paid a
sum of Rs.30,082/- as demanded by the distributor of the respondent. It is in the aforementioned situation the
claim of the respondent that a sum of Rs.57,000/- was due should be taken into
consideration. According to the
petitioner the admitted amount outstanding against him was only a sum of
Rs.10,000/-. Demand of any other or
further sum was, therefore, disputed.
The petitioner, however, without prejudice to its rights and contentions
even tendered the aforementioned amount to the respondent so that it can
continue its business. The respondent
accepted the said payment without any demur.
It even did not question the correctness or otherwise of the order
passed by this Tribunal from time to time in terms whereof not only the payment
by way of arrears was found to have been made, but also even the parties had
entered into detailed negotiations.
19. We
have noticed heretobefore that the respondent for one reason or the other had
been asking for informations from the petitioner which are not only wholly
irrelevant but also not germane for the purpose of entering into an agreement;
even a fresh agreement. The respondent,
therefore, in our considered opinion having accepted the entire amount which
could have been a subject matter of suit at its instance and having entered
into a detailed negotiation with the petitioner for the purpose of entering
into an agreement with it, must be held to be estopped and precluded from
raising a contention that petitioner cannot be granted any relief at this stage
having regard to the circumstances which were existing on the date of filing
this petition.
20. Even
in a civil suit a party waive its rights in this behalf. Submission of Mr.Jain that an original
application was not maintainable having regard to the direction of the TRAI
cannot also be accepted. Section 11 of
the TRAI Act provide for its functions.
Our attention has been drawn to sub-clause(iii) of Clause (b) of
sub-section 1 of Section 11 which reads as under:-
“(iii) Ensure
technical compatibility and effective interconnection between different service
providers.”
It, however, does not appear that the
petitioner has invoked the aforementioned jurisdiction. Furthermore, the TRAI merely refused to
entertain the application at the threshold stating that the petitioner has not
furnished the details/particulars of the violations allegedly committed by the
respondent. Such a communication on the
part of the Authority did not result into recommendation or a decision
mandating recourse to only the appellate jurisdiction of this Tribunal and not
the original jurisdiction.
In any event, this Tribunal having
both the original jurisdiction as also the appellate jurisdiction may consider,
in a given case and in the interest of justice a matter to have been moved
before it in its appellate jurisdiction although the petitioner has sought to
invoke its original jurisdiction. We, therefore, find no merit in the
contention of the respondent in this behalf.
21. We,
therefore, are of the opinion that the reliefs claimed for by are capable of
being suitably moulded having regard to the subsequent event as also conduct of
the respondent reference whereto has been mentioned herein. We, therefore, direct the respondent to grant
signals to the petitioner within one week from the date of furnishing of the
relevant informations as contained in sub-clause 2(ii) and (v) of the respondent
in its letter dated 21.10.2009. The
petitioner is also entitled to costs of this petition. Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs.50,000/-
……………J
(S.B. Sinha)
Chairperson
…………….
(G.D. Gaiha)
Member