Court : Uttaranchal
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. After the decision of the Union Cabinet dated 02.11.2000, whereby 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) broadcasting was permitted in India, prohibition on the reception and distribution of television signals in Ku Band was withdrawn by the Department of Telecommunications, through a notification dated 09.01.2001. In order to give effect to the decision of the Cabinet, as also, the notification issued by the Department of Telecommunications, referred to above, guidelines dated 15.03.2001 were issued laying down the procedure for obtaining licences for providing 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) broadcasting service in India on 15.03.2001. In the aforesaid guidelines, the conditions of eligibility were also prescribed.2. In so far as the procedural aspect of the matter is concerned, interested parties were to be required to submit an application to the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. If the applicant was found eligible (for setting up a 'Direct-to-Home' (DTH) platform in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : AIR2009Utr31; (2009)26VST649(NULL)
ORDERPrafulla C. Pant, J.1. In all the above three writ petitions, levy of entertainment tax under the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979, on Direct to Home (for short DTH) service provided by the petitioners is challenged, and the question of law involved is the same, hence, the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits filed on behalf of the parties.3. Factual matrix of these cases is that the petitioners are granted licenses under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 5 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, on payment of license fee. Their case is that DTH service is different to that of one provided by the cable operators. It is pleaded by the petitioners that the DTH services are provided by them by using satellite system that transmits programmes and provides T.V. signals directly to subscriber's premises. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. The petitioner was inducted into the employment of the department as a Senior Instructor (Agriculture Engineering) on the recommendation of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. In due course of time, he was confirmed against the post of Senior Instructor by an order dated 22.12.1986.2. On the reorganization of the composite State of Uttar Pradesh, options were invited. The petitioner submitted his option for allocation to the successor State of Uttarakhand. He was, accordingly, allocated to the successor State of Uttarakhand.3. Six posts of Extension Training Officer (Agriculture) were sanctioned in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500. The post of Senior Instructor is the feeding cadre for promotion to the aforesaid post of Extension Training Officer. The petitioner claims, that he was promoted as Extension Training Officer by an order dated 30.06.2006 with the approval of the Chief Minister of the State of Uttarakhand. He was, however, reverted back to the pos...
Tag this Judgment!