DIGI CABLE NETWORK (INDIA) PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 07-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
DIGI CABLE NETWORK (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 120 of  2019)
JANUARY 07, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Cable Television Network Rules, 1994:
s. 11C [as inserted by Cable Television Network (Amendment)
Rules, 2012] – Initial permission granted u/r. 11C, cancelled on the
ground that “security clearance” was not granted – Cancellation
challenged in writ petition – High Court dismissed the petition – On
appeal, held: Cancellation order was in conformity with  the
requirements of r.11C – Principles of natural justice also not violated
as the applicant was not entitled to any prior notice before
cancellation of permission – In cases of national security, a party
cannot insist for strict observance of principles of natural justice –
Principles of Natural Justice.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The impugned order of cancellation was passed
in conformity with the requirements of Rule 11C of Cable
Television Network Rules, 1994 and hence it was rightly upheld
by the High Court in impugned order. It is clear from mere reading
of the Rule 11C(1) that grant of permission is subject to issue of
security clearance from the Central Government to the applicant.
In the present case, admittedly the appellant failed to obtain the
security clearance.  It was a mandatory requirement as provided
under Rule 11C of the Rules.  Since the grant of permission was
subject to obtaining of the security clearance from the concerned
Ministry, the competent authority was justified in cancelling the
conditional permission for want of security clearance. [Paras 11,
13 and 14][90-G-H; 91-C-D]
2. In a situation of national security, a party cannot insist
for the strict observance of the principles of natural justice. The
principles of natural justice were not violated in the present case,
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 88
88
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
89
inasmuch as the appellant was not entitled to claim any prior notice
before cancellation of permission. [Paras 16, 18][92-E-F]
Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services Private Limited v.
Union of India and Others (2014) 5 SCC 409 : [2014]
3  SCR 359 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 3 SCR 359
relied on
Para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 120 of
2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2015 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 58 of 2015.
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2019.
Jay Savla, Ms. Renuka Sahu, Prabhat Chaurasia, Jasdeep Singh
Dhillon, Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, Sharath Sampath, Manikya Khanna,
Ms. Kriti Bhalla, Pratyaksh Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, A. K. Panda, Sr. Adv., Rajesh Ranjan, R.
K. Verma, Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Ms. Charanya L. Kumaran, Chokitan
Vikram Shekhar Papta, Chinmayee Chandra for Gurmeet Singh Makker,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
IN CIVIL APPEAL No. 120 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 33244 of 2015)
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order
dated 30.10.2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in  Writ
Petition No.58 of 2015  whereby the Division Bench of the High Court
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
3. The controversy involved in this appeal lies in a narrow compass
as would be clear from the facts stated hereinbelow.
DIGI CABLE NETWORK (INDIA) PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF
INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
90
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
4. By letter dated 12.06.2012  (Annexure P-2) the appellant was
granted permission by the Government of India under Rule 11C of the
Cable Television Network (Amendment) Rules,  2012 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Rules”) for operating as Multi System  Operator
(MSO) in the Digital Addressable System (DAS) notified areas vide
notification dated 11.11.2011.
5. This permission was, however, cancelled by the Government
of India vide order dated 03.09.2014 on the ground that the Ministry of
Home Affairs has denied issuance of “security clearance” to the
appellant. In other words, since the Ministry of Home Affairs did not
grant security clearance to the appellant, the permission initially granted
to the appellant vide letter dated 12.06.2012 was cancelled.
6. Challenging the order of cancellation of grant of permission,
the appellant filed writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at
Mumbai. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.