|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Tuesday, 25 May 2004 |
 |
|
 |
News | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
by Indeewara Thilakarathne The Court of Appeal extended the Interim Order earlier issued restraining the Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (TRC) and its Director General from withdrawing or allocating the frequencies already allocated to TNL Radio Network (Pvt) Ltd to June 1, 2004. In this case the petitioner TNL Radio Network (Pvt.) Ltd. has cited Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (TRC), its Director General Themiya L. B. Hurulle and five others as respondents. The petitioner states that they are engaged in radio broadcasting and that it has been allocated 101.7 MHZ, 89.2 MHZ, 90.0 MHZ, 100.7 MHZ, 95.6 MHZ, 452-3250MHZ-UHF and 313.225 MHZ. They also stated that it has applied for further frequencies as a part of its expanding operations. Accordingly, the TRC allocated on or around December 16, 2003 the frequency 95.5 MHZ from Deniyaya which was valid for a period of one year from the date of issue and would be cancelled if not used within that period. On or around April 4, 2003 the petitioner was allocated 87.9 MHZ from Deniyaya and petitioner also states that TNL (Pvt) Ltd., on April 25, 2002, has already been allocated the frequency of 95.6 MHZ from Gongala,Deniyaya for a unspecific period of reservation and that the frequency was meant for its expansion of operation in the South. The petitioner further states that it has sought the approval from the TRC for the importation of specific equipment to be used for the transmission over Gongala. On or around March 10, 2004 the TNL Chief Executive Officer received a telephone call from the Assistant Director Spectrum Management that TRC required to inspect the petitioner's transmitters located in Colombo. The petitioner states that later on the petitioner's Colombo transmission location was examined by an officer from the TRC. The petitioner received a fax on March 11 with the signature of the second respondent that an officer will visit the petitioner's Gongala site on March 12 to inspect the transmission equipment on the site. The petitioner was also requested by the said letter to make arrangements for the said inspection. In the above circumstances the petitioner was unable to accompany the said officer from the TRC to the Gongala site where the petitioner's transmission equipment was located. The petitioner further states that it received a letter on March 30 from the respondent and the letter was dated March 24, 2004. By the letter the petitioner was informed that the frequencies reserved for the petitioner to carry on its transmission from the Gonagala site was withdrawn as the petitioner failed to commence transmission within the stipulated period of time. The petitioner states that it has not required to show cause as to why the frequencies should not be cancelled or withdrawn and never informed of any allegation or charge that the petitioner was not utilizing the said frequencies. Petitioner prayed for a Writ of Certiorari quashing the purported withdrawal or the cancellation and Writ or Prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any action pursuant to the said withdrawal and to issue an Interim Order staying the withdrawal or the cancellation and to allocation or assigning the said frequencies to any other party. Chanaka de Silva instructed by Sudath Perera Associates appeared for the petitioner. The hearings were put off for May 31. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
