HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1229 OF 2014 DATED:10.10.2014 Between:
Amoda Broadcasting Company Private Limited (ABN Andhra Jyothi News Channel) Plot No.443-A/19-111, Road No.86 Jubilee Hills Hyderabad Rep. by its Associate Editor Sri D.H.V.S.S.N. Murthy … Appellant … Petitioner And The Union of India Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Government of India “A” Wing, Shastry Bhavan New Delhi and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1229 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against the order of the learned single Judge dt.25.7.2014 whereby His Lordship dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.
2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:
“… to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents, more particularly respondents 2 to 13 in taking action against the respondents 14 and 15 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 13 to initiate action against the respondents 14 and 15 under the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 for violating the provisions of the Act, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. After reading statement and averment made in the writ petition, we notice that the grievance of the writ petitioner/appellant is against respondent Nos.14 and 15. A few paragraphs of the factual statement recorded by the learned trial Judge, is reproduced hereunder:
“Petitioner is a broadcasting company, which owns a Free-to-Air 24 x 7 News and Current Affairs Telugu Satellite Television Channel viz., ABN Andhra Jyothi. The said channel has stated to have commenced its operations on 15.10.2009 and is stated to have been commanding huge viewership. The cable television viewers of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have been receiving signals from the petitioner’s channel without any interruption through Multi System Operators (MSO’s). It is stated that after the bifurcation of the State into the State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Telangana, the MSO’s of Telangana areas formed into an association, which is arrayed as respondent No.14 and represented by its President, arrayed as respondent No.15.
It is alleged that on 15.06.2014, respondent No.14 stopped the telecast of two Telugu news channels viz., ABN Andhra Jyothi as well as TV9 in the Telangana State. It is alleged that the stoppage of telecast was allegedly on account of deliberate denigration and mockery of Telangana Legislators in its programme. While the Speaker of the Assembly of the State of Telangana is stated to have been authorized by the Assembly to take appropriate action against the channels, the present writ petition does not concern with that part and the relief sought for is confined to the action of respondents 14 and 15 in stopping the telecast of the petitioner’s news channel along with the said other channel from the date aforesaid.”
4. Therefore, the grievance clearly is against respondent Nos.14 and 15. In the context of the aforesaid factual aspect, the writ petition was filed asking mandate upon official respondent Nos.2 to 13 to take action against the aforesaid steps taken by respondent Nos.14 and 15 in stopping telecasting the programmes transmitted by the writ petitioner.
5. Sri S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant, submits that because of the action of the respondents, his client’s right of freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is violated. According to him, this has been done not by respondent Nos.14 and 15 on their own, but because of the statement made by the Hon’ble the Chief Minister of the Telangana, as has been disclosed in their counter affidavit.
6. After hearing the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and looking at the prayer and body of the petition, we find that the grievance is against respondent Nos.14 and 15 in real sense, but reliefs sought for against official respondents.
7. Now, looking at the prayer in the writ petition we have to examine whether the official respondents have any power to take action pursuant to the claim made by the writ petitioner appellant? According to according to Mr. Ravi, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, Section 19 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 would be appropriate provision to take action
8. To examine this aspect, we have seen the text of the complaint and the provisions of Section 19 of the aforesaid Act. We think that the official respondents do not have any power thereunder to restore telecasting of the programmes transmitted by the writ petitioner - appellant through respondent Nos.14 and 15. This Section deals with different subject and it would be apparent therefrom. We accordingly set out the aforesaid Section hereunder:
“19. Power to prohibit transmission of certain programmes in public interest.- Where any authorized officer thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest, he may, by order, prohibit any cable operator from transmitting or re-transmitting any programme or channel if, it is not in conformity with the prescribed programme code referred to in section 5 and advertisement code referred to in section 6 or if it is likely to promote, on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities or which is likely to disturb the public tranquility.”
9. We are not holding finally whether the respondent Nos.14 and 15 are not other authorities within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Looking at the petition and the prayer as made, we think that the learned trial Judge should have dismissed the writ petition in limine. However, inviting the affidavit when His Lordship has been pleased to observe that no mandate can be issued, we agree with His Lordship’s view on the basis of the material placed before His Lordship Writ of Mandamus could not be issued against any of the respondents. It would be open for the writ petitioner – appellant, as also observed by His Lordship, to take steps in accordance with law, as may be advised, for redressal of its grievance.
10. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 10.10.2014 bnr Note: L.R. Copy to be marked. Yes.