CSN vs. TRC case: CA further extends status quo till 17 Feb.

Wednesday, 18 January 2017 00:00 -     - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

By S. S. Selvanayagam

The Court of Appeal yesterday (17) further extended its order to maintain status quo till 17 February in respect to the licenses issued for four frequencies allocated to Calton Sports Network (CSN) by the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC). 

The bench comprised Justices Vijith K. Malalgoda (President/CA) and S. Thurairajah.

The Court of Appeal on 12 December granted time till 17 January to Mass Media Ministry Secretary and TRC to file objections in respect of the writ petition filed by Carlton Sports Network Ltd. challenging the impugned decision to revoke its Television Broadcasting License. They had filed objections accordingly.

Court granted time till 16 February to the petitioner CSN to file a counter objection.

CSN cited Parliamentary Reforms and Mass Media Minister Secretary Nimal Bopage, Minister Gayantha Karunatillake, TRC and its Director General Sunil S. Sirisena as respondents. Sanjeeva Jayawardane PC with Kaushalya Molligoda, Lakmini Warusevitane and Charitha Rupasinghe instructed by Nisanka Wijesinghe appeared for CSN. Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Rajaratnam appeared for the State.

CSN states it is engaged in carrying on the business of operating a terrestrial television network for the production of content for broadcast. 

It claims it has not violated any of the terms and conditions contained in its license. It maintains the purported revocation has been resorted to, as a pre-emptive strike, without even affording it the basic right and concomitant safeguard of being issued some form of show, cause or intimation of the allegations against it.

It contends that the right to be heard is an indispensable, non-derogable, inalienable and indivisible right and safeguard.

It alleges the purported revocation by the Media Ministry Secretary is utterly and most grievously ultra vires (beyond his legal power or authority) and illegal, arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and violative of the basic principles of natural justice.

It is seeking the Court to quash the purported decision by the Ministry Secretary and to restrain the Secretary from interfering with the operation, function and broadcasts of its television channel.