9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 2026 - SC - Indian LawsCancellation/withdrawal of permission granted to the Appellant (for operating as Multi System Operator (MSO) in the Digital Addressable System (DAS) notified areas) - HELD THAT - The impugned order of cancellation was passed in conformity with the requirements of Rule 11C of the Rules 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 (Appellant in this case) - In this case, admittedly the Appellant failed to obtain the security clearance as provided Under Rule 11C of the Rules. 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. Having perused the note filed by the Union of India, which resulted in cancellation of permission, it is opined that in the facts of this case, the Appellant was not entitled to claim any prior notice before passing of the cancellation order in question. The principles of natural justice were not violated in this case in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ex-Armymen's Protection Services Private Limited 2014 (2) TMI 1422 - SUPREME COURT inasmuch as the Appellant was not entitled to claim any prior notice before cancellation of permission. The appeal is found to be devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
Issues:
1. Permission granted for operating as Multi System Operator (MSO) cancelled due to lack of security clearance. 2. Challenge to the cancellation order through a writ petition. 3. Justification of the High Court's decision in upholding the cancellation. 4. Compliance with Rule 11C of the Cable Television Network (Amendment) Rules, 2012. 5. Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice in cancellation of permission. Analysis: 1. The case involved the cancellation of permission granted to the Appellant for operating as a Multi System Operator (MSO) in Digital Addressable System (DAS) areas, due to the lack of security clearance from the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Appellant challenged this cancellation through a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay. 2. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the cancellation as just, legal, and proper. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court to determine whether the High Court's decision was justified in dismissing the writ petition and upholding the cancellation order dated 03.09.2014. 3. The Supreme Court analyzed Rule 11C of the Cable Television Network (Amendment) Rules, 2012, which specifies that the grant of permission as an MSO is subject to obtaining security clearance from the Central Government. Since the Appellant failed to obtain this mandatory security clearance, the cancellation of permission was deemed justified by the competent authority. 4. The Appellant argued that the cancellation order violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity for a hearing before cancellation. However, the Supreme Court referred to the case law and established that in matters concerning national security, strict adherence to natural justice principles may not apply. The Court emphasized that decisions related to national security are entrusted to the executive and not subject to judicial intervention. 5. Based on the facts of the case and the document filed by the Union of India regarding the reasons for cancellation, the Supreme Court concluded that the Appellant was not entitled to prior notice before the cancellation of permission. The Court held that the principles of natural justice were not violated in this case, in line with the legal precedent cited. 6. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found the appeal devoid of merit and dismissed it. However, the Court granted the Appellant the liberty to apply for fresh permission in accordance with the law. The decision in Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2019 was also dismissed in alignment with the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2019.
|
