CHENNAI: An AIADMK MP's public interest litigation petition, seeking rejection of the Sun TV group's application for Direct to Home (DTH) licence, has been dismissed by the Madras High Court.

The Court said the petition did not satisfy any of the tests laid down by the Supreme Court to entertain PILs.

``When the licensing authority is still seized of the matter relating to the grant of licence to the Sun group, this court cannot outreach its jurisdiction and decide the manner in which the application for the grant of licence should be considered by the licensing authority. The prayer, as framed in the writ petition, cannot be granted,'' said the vacation Bench, comprising Justice Prabha Sridevan and Justice C. Nagappan.

Dismissing the plea of P.G. Narayanan, they said: ``He is not speaking on behalf of the downtrodden people or people who cannot speak for themselves. No case of public injury has been made out and we do not see how the petitioner has the locus standi to raise this issue. Therefore, on the ground of maintainability alone, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.''

Bench `surprised'

Pointing out that Mr. Narayanan was a Rajya Sabha member and leader of the AIADMK Parliamentary Party, and that he had been an MLA and had practised as an advocate, the Judges said: "we can only say that we are surprised that a person of such credentials should have filed this petition. We do not want to say anything more.''

The Bench said no public interest appeared to be involved in the grievance of the petitioner. "It is not clear how public interest will suffer or public injury will be caused if the application of the Sun group is considered. It is only one among the many applicants seeking DTH licence. In fact, some other persons have already been granted DTH licence even before the Sun group.''

Wondering whether a court could order rejection of an application in view of the provisions of the Competition Act 2002, they said, ``it is only after the licensing agreement is entered into, that the provisions of the Act will come into play and that stage has not been reached in this case. Therefore, the Competition Act has no application.''

Three conditions

On the attempts of the petitioner's counsel to invoke the court's jurisdiction for a quia timet action, the Judges said quia timet was an extraordinary relief granted by courts to prevent irreparable harm.

This ``writ of prevention'' requires three conditions — no actual present injury, reasonable fear of future harm and irreparable harm if relief is not granted. ``The petitioner has not made out a case of reasonable future harm, and it is not clear how, if the licence is granted to the Sun group, public interest will be injured.''

As for the submission by the petitioner's counsel that the Centre's refusal to furnish relevant files in court would amount to contempt, the Judges said, ``the petition has not been admitted, rule nisi not issued and the records have not been called for.

Therefore, we do not propose to draw any inference merely because the Centre has not produced the records.

``When the law laid down by the Supreme Court is clear that court cannot usurp the power of a statutory authority, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted,'' the Bench concluded.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National

News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Updates: Breaking News |