TDSAT Decrees Rs 92 Lakh Against FM Operator That Refused to Vacate All India Radio Premises After GOPA Termination

Singla Property Dealers held its FM transmission equipment at All India Radio, Hissar for over six years after its Grant of Permission Agreement was terminated in 2009, prompting Prasar Bharati to seek damages, arrears, and eviction before TDSAT.

The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has decreed Broadcasting Petition No. 125 of 2016 in favour of Prasar Bharati, directing M/s Singla Property Dealers Pvt. Ltd. to vacate licensed infrastructure at All India Radio, Hissar within two months and to pay a total of Rs 92,72,765/- in damages and arrears. Justice Ram Krishna Gautam, Member, passed the judgment on 23 May 2026 in an ex-parte proceeding after the respondent failed to appear, file a reply, or lead any evidence despite repeated service including service through police mode. The petition was filed under Section 14 of the TRAI Act, 1997, and the decree follows a consistent line of TDSAT judgments in similar Prasar Bharati infrastructure disputes.

The FM Radio Infrastructure Arrangement at Hissar

In 2005, the Government of India invited bids for FM Radio Transmission slots across various cities. Singla Property Dealers was a successful bidder for the city of Hissar. The Government executed a Grant of Permission Agreement (GOPA) with the respondent on 11.10.2006, granting it an FM licence for Hissar.

A condition in the original tender required the successful bidder to set up transmission facilities on land and tower to be provided by Prasar Bharati. Accordingly, a separate Licensed Infrastructure Agreement was executed between Prasar Bharati and Singla Property Dealers on 23.03.2006. Under this agreement, the respondent was permitted to use open space and tower aperture at the All India Radio premises in Hissar.

The annual licence fee under the agreement was Rs 5,01,800/-, subject to enhancement at 10% every two years for open and covered space and common facilities, and at 2.5% every year for the tower aperture, as set out in Clause 3.2. The agreement also contained an automatic termination clause: if the GOPA between the Government of India and the respondent were terminated, the infrastructure agreement would stand terminated automatically.

Termination of the GOPA and Consequent Obligations

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting terminated the GOPA by letter dated 17.07.2009, with effect from that date. By operation of the automatic termination clause, the Licensed Infrastructure Agreement of 23.03.2006 also came to an end on 17.07.2009.

Clause 7.7 of the infrastructure agreement required the respondent to remove its equipment from the site upon termination. If it failed to do so, it would be liable to pay damages quantified at five times the annual rent, calculated for open area only, on a pro-rata basis, at Rs 12,44,212/- per annum.

At the time of termination, the respondent was already in arrears of licence fee for the period 27.10.2007 to 16.07.2009. The outstanding licence fee, including delayed payment interest, stood at Rs 12,34,255/-. Despite the termination, the respondent neither removed its equipment nor vacated the licensed infrastructure.

Repeated Demands and Invocation of TDSAT Jurisdiction

Prasar Bharati made repeated demands on the respondent to vacate the premises, remove equipment, and clear dues. A formal notice dated 27.06.2012 demanded payment of Rs 44,99,886/-. There was no response.

Clause 12 of the infrastructure agreement provided for arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator to be nominated by the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, in the event mutual consultation failed. Prasar Bharati invoked arbitration by letter dated 07.02.2013. However, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued a letter dated 15.05.2013 indicating that TDSAT had jurisdiction over the dispute. The petition was accordingly filed before TDSAT in 2016.

As on 31.12.2015, the total amount due from the respondent — comprising arrears of licence fee and damages — was calculated at Rs 92,72,765/-, as set out in a calculation sheet filed as Annexure P-8 to the petition.

Ex-Parte Proceedings and Evidentiary Record

Service of notice was effected on the respondent. When no appearance was entered, TDSAT passed an order to proceed ex-parte on 26.07.2016. The matter was referred to the Court of Registrar for recording of evidence. After delays attributable to the COVID period, a further attempt at service through police mode was made, and sufficient service was confirmed. Still, no one appeared for the respondent.

By order dated 01.03.2024, the matter was again proceeded ex-parte. Evidence was led by way of an affidavit of Mr Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Assistant Engineer (P&D Unit), All India Radio, Prasar Bharati, New Delhi, who was the authorised representative of the petitioner.

Mr Mishra proved the tender document (Exhibit PW-1/1), the GOPA dated 11.10.2006 (Exhibit PW-1/2), the infrastructure agreement dated 23.03.2006 (Exhibit PW-1/3), the GOPA termination letter dated 17.07.2009 (Exhibit PW-1/4), the demand notice (Exhibit PW-1/5), the postal proof of demand (Exhibit PW-1/6), and the calculation sheet (Exhibit PW-1/8). The witness confirmed familiarity with the signatures of the relevant officials on each document.

How the Tribunal Reasoned

Justice Gautam applied the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities. Drawing on the Supreme Court's judgment in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh — AIR 2006 SC 1971 — the Tribunal noted that the initial burden of proof rests on the plaintiff, and once discharged, the onus shifts to the defendant to lead rebuttal evidence. The respondent led no evidence and filed no reply.

The Tribunal held that the affidavit evidence of Mr Mishra fully corroborated the contentions in the petition, and that the documents were proved without any controversion. It observed: “the burden, laid upon the Petitioner, has been fully exhausted.”

On the question of damages, the Tribunal found that the respondent's failure to remove equipment after termination amounted to a violation of Clause 6.9 of the agreement, attracting the five-times-annual-rent damages stipulated in Clause 7.7.

The Tribunal also referred to two prior decisions in similar Prasar Bharati infrastructure disputes: Prasar Bharati v. Chinnar Circuit Limited, BP No. 652 of 2016, decided on 12.04.2023, reported at 2023 SCC Online TDSAT 101 (against which a Supreme Court appeal was dismissed on merits), and Prasar Bharati v. Pan India Network Infravest Pvt. Limited, BP No. 564 of 2015, decided on 23.02.2024. In both those cases, petitions were decreed under comparable facts. The present case, with no appearance or rebuttal from the respondent, was held to be an even stronger case for a decree.

On interest, the Tribunal awarded simple interest at 9% per annum, consistent with its approach in repeated judgments on such matters.

Order

The petition was decreed with costs. The Tribunal made the following specific directions:

First, it declared that the respondent's possession of the licensed infrastructure is unauthorised, illegal, and contrary to the License Agreement dated 23.03.2006, and directed the respondent to remove and vacate the same within two months from the date of judgment.

Second, the respondent was directed to deposit damages at the rate of five times the licence fee, i.e., Rs 12,44,212/- per annum, for the period 17.07.2009 to 31.12.2015, amounting to Rs 80,38,510/-, in the Tribunal for payment to Prasar Bharati.

Third, the respondent was directed to pay arrears of licence fee including delayed payment interest amounting to Rs 12,34,255/-, within two months, in the Tribunal for payment to Prasar Bharati.

Fourth, pendente lite and future simple interest at 9% per annum on the above amounts, from 31.12.2015 to the actual date of payment, was also directed to be deposited in the Tribunal.

Fifth, in the event the respondent fails to vacate the premises within two months, additional damages equivalent to the damages already awarded shall be payable for the period of default. In case of non-compliance, the directions are to be executed as per the procedure for execution of decrees.

The office was directed to prepare a formal order and decree accordingly.