TDSAT orders FM broadcaster to pay Rs 92.7 lakh, ‘vacate Prasar Bharati infrastructure’

In a key ruling reinforcing the contractual rights of public broadcasting infrastructure providers, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has directed Haryana-based broadcaster Singla Property Dealers Pvt Ltd to vacate infrastructure owned by Prasar Bharati and pay more than ₹92 lakh towards unpaid licence fees and damages, along with interest.

The tribunal, presided over by Justice Ram Krishna Gautam, held that the company's continued occupation of transmission infrastructure at All India Radio's Hissar premises was "unauthorised, illegal and contrary" to the terms of the licence agreement executed between the parties.

The order comes nearly 17 years after the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting terminated the broadcaster's FM radio licence, and follows a decade-long legal battle initiated by Prasar Bharati seeking recovery of dues and removal of equipment from its premises.

Dispute Traces Back to Phase-II FM Radio Licensing

The dispute has its origins in the Government of India's Phase-II FM radio expansion programme launched in 2005, under which private operators bid for FM radio frequencies across multiple cities.

Singla Property Dealers Pvt Ltd emerged as the successful bidder for the Hissar FM radio station. Following the award, the company entered into a Grant of Permission Agreement (GOPA) with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in October 2006, enabling it to operate the FM radio station.

As part of the licensing framework, private broadcasters were required to establish transmission facilities using land and tower infrastructure provided by Prasar Bharati. Accordingly, Prasar Bharati and the broadcaster entered into a separate infrastructure licence agreement in March 2006 for use of facilities located at the All India Radio campus in Hissar.

Under the agreement, the broadcaster was granted access to open space and tower aperture facilities and was obligated to pay an annual licence fee of ₹5.02 lakh. The contract also provided for periodic escalation in fees, including a 10% increase every two years for space and common facilities and a 2.5% annual increase for tower usage.

Licence Cancellation Triggered Automatic Termination

A key provision of the infrastructure agreement stipulated that if the government's FM broadcasting licence was terminated, the infrastructure arrangement with Prasar Bharati would automatically cease to exist.

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting terminated Singla Property Dealers' GOPA on July 17, 2009. Consequently, the infrastructure agreement with Prasar Bharati also stood terminated on the same date.

According to Prasar Bharati, the broadcaster was thereafter obligated to remove all its equipment and vacate the site. However, despite repeated notices and reminders, the company neither removed its transmission equipment nor relinquished possession of the infrastructure.

The public broadcaster argued that such continued occupation violated the terms of the agreement and entitled it to recover contractual damages.

Damages Clause Became Central to Case

At the heart of the dispute was Clause 7.7 of the infrastructure agreement, which provided that in the event the broadcaster failed to remove its equipment after termination of the agreement, it would be liable to pay damages equivalent to five times the applicable annual rent.

Prasar Bharati informed the tribunal that the company continued to occupy the premises long after termination of the licence agreement, resulting in mounting damages and unpaid licence fee liabilities.

The broadcaster also pointed out that, even before termination of the agreement, the company had accumulated licence fee arrears for the period between October 2007 and July 2009.

By the time the matter reached adjudication, Prasar Bharati calculated that total dues had crossed ₹92 lakh as of December 31, 2015.

Respondent Failed to Contest Proceedings

A notable aspect of the case was the complete absence of participation from the respondent.

Despite service of notices and multiple opportunities provided by the tribunal, including service through police authorities, the company neither filed a reply nor appeared before the tribunal.

As a result, the proceedings were conducted ex parte.

The tribunal noted that Prasar Bharati had produced documentary evidence including the original tender documents, the Grant of Permission Agreement, the infrastructure licence agreement, termination communications issued by the government, demand notices, and detailed calculations of outstanding dues.

Evidence was supported through the affidavit of an authorised representative of Prasar Bharati, who formally proved the documents and financial claims placed on record.

Justice Gautam observed that the evidence submitted by the petitioner remained entirely unrebutted.

Reliance on Earlier TDSAT Precedents

While delivering the judgment, the tribunal referred to earlier decisions involving similar disputes between Prasar Bharati and FM radio operators.

The order specifically cited previous rulings in cases involving Chinnar Circuit Limited and Pan India Network Infravest Pvt Ltd, where broadcasters had similarly continued to occupy Prasar Bharati infrastructure after termination of their licences.

The tribunal noted that those petitions had also been decided in favour of Prasar Bharati and that the Supreme Court had dismissed challenges to at least one of those decisions.

The ruling suggests that TDSAT is continuing to adopt a consistent approach in disputes involving post-termination occupation of broadcasting infrastructure and recovery of contractual damages.

Tribunal Awards Damages and Interest

Allowing the petition in full, the tribunal directed the company to vacate the licensed infrastructure within two months from the date of the judgment.

The tribunal also ordered payment of:

• Damages of ₹80.39 lakh for unauthorised occupation of infrastructure for the period between July 17, 2009 and December 31, 2015;
• Licence fee arrears and delayed payment charges amounting to ₹12.34 lakh;
• Simple interest at 9% per annum on the awarded amount from December 31, 2015 until actual payment.

The total principal liability awarded by the tribunal thus exceeds ₹92.7 lakh, excluding continuing interest.

In addition, the tribunal warned that if the company fails to vacate the premises within the stipulated two-month period, further damages at the same rate would continue to accrue for the period of default.

Implications for Broadcasting Sector

The ruling underscores the legal enforceability of infrastructure-sharing agreements between Prasar Bharati and private broadcasters, particularly in cases where broadcasting licences are revoked or terminated.

Industry observers note that the judgment could strengthen Prasar Bharati's position in recovering dues from defunct or non-operational FM radio licensees that continue to occupy government-owned transmission facilities.

The decision also sends a broader signal to private broadcasters that contractual obligations relating to infrastructure use remain enforceable even after operational licences cease to exist.

For Prasar Bharati, which owns a vast network of transmission towers and broadcast infrastructure across India, the judgment may serve as an important precedent in ongoing efforts to monetise and protect its infrastructure assets while ensuring compliance among private users of public broadcasting facilities.