Subhodaya Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd v. 1. Union of lndia

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondent No..1 in passing the order dated 16.09.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and as one suffering from material irregularities and glaring infirmities, consequently, set aside the said order, and further direct the respondents not to insist upon the payment of Rs.41 ,19,961/- by the petitioner to Respondent No.2, pending disposal of the writ petition lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1, and consequently stay all further proceedings pursuant thereto, including the demand for payment of Rs.4'1 ,19,9611 by the petitioner to Respondent No.2, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. T. KANYA KUMARI Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1: SRI HIMANSHU DHAWAN, COUNSEL REPRESENTING Ms. N.V.R. RAJYALAKSHMI, COUNSEL REPRESENTING FOR SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : --- The Court made the following: ORDER \\ I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.317O1 oF 2o2S ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- "...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or arly other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondent No.l in passing the order dated 16.09.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and as one suffering from material irregularities and glaring infirmities, consequently, set aside the said order, and further direct the respondents not to insist upon the payment of Rs.41,19,961/- by the petitioner to Respondent No.2, pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass......"

2. Heard Mr.Himalshu Dharvan, learned counscl representing Ms. N.V.R.Rajyalakshmi, learned Counsel representing Mr.N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No. 1.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of the present petition is already pending adjudication before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), New Delhi. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the irnpugned order passed by the TDSAT in relation to the disputed dues between the petitioner and the respondent.

3.2. It is submitted that the respondent had earlier liled an application before the original jurisdiction of the Telecom 2 Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, wherein - both the claim and counter-claim were pending consideration. However, the Tribunal, without entering into the merits of ttre dispute or undertaking a detailed deliberation, passed an order directing the petitioner to make payment of the claimed amount, failing which the petitioner was directed to personally appear before the Tribunal on 04.11.2025.

3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that such a direction, issued at an interlocutory stage, virtually amounts to a pre-determination of liability, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and prejudicial to the petitioner's substantive rights. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to participate in the proceedings in Broadcasting Petition No.2O3 of 2024, pending before the TDSAT, and to have the issues relating to the accountal and liability decided on merits. The petitioner, therefore, prays that appropriate directions or observations be issued to safeguard his interest pending adjudication of the main matter. I have perused the material placed on record. 4

5.A perusaJ TDSA? indicates (i,) that the petidoner of the rmPugned misce.l.laneoUs order of the that the Tribunaj has issued two directions: sha.ll mal.e payment of Rs.4I,l g,g6JJ* 7 J within a period of six weeks; and (ii) that the petitioner shail personally appear before tl're Tribunal on 04. 1 L.2025.

6. A reading of the order further reflects that t1e Tribunal has prima facie considered the matter only for the limited purpose of ensuring continuity of service or compliance, and that the direction for payment was issued subject to the petitioner's admission of liability. The order itself records that, if the petitioner disputes the liability, it would be open to him to appea-r before the Tribunal and raise all permissible contentions in law.

7. Thus, it is evident that the Tribunal has not conclusively determined the petitioner's liability but has merely afforded procedural flexibility, permitting the petitioner to either comply with the interim condition or to appear and contest the claim before the Tribunai. The order, therefore, does not arnount to a final adjudication or prejudgment of liability.

8. Having regard to the submissions made and the material placed on record, and taking into account the petitioner's statement that he is willing to participate in the proceedings in Broadcasting Petition No.203 of 2024, this Court is of the considered view that no interference with the impugned order is presently warranted. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the TDSAT and seek an early hearing and disposal of 4 the main petition itself, so that the dispute regarding the alleged dues and accounts may be resolved on merits and in accordance with law, instead of through interlocutory proceedings' g. With the above observations and liberty, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// To

1. Union of lndia, Through, Telecom Disp Tribunal, Room No. 478, 4th Floor, Chanakyapuri New Delhi 110021 . H S - T. SRINIVASA RED SISTANT RE N OFFICER S mrat, and Appellate Kautilya Marg,

2. Jiostar lndia Pvt. Ltd,8-2-120186/10, Opp. Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 034. Park Hyatt, Road No. 2, Banjara

3. One CC to M/s T. KANYA KUMARI, Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia loPUCl

5. Two CD Copies PVL/MPp'q. HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 ORDER WP.No.31701 of 2025 t) c o C) 1 [ tiB 2026 * \\ * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS r\q. r.r [ :-\ra.