Bombay High Court

IndiaversusUnion of India

Decided: 24 August 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The writ petition was held to be infructuous and was disposed of.

Summary

The Digital Cable Operator’s Association filed a writ petition challenging actions of the Union of India. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India filed an interim application acknowledging that the petition had become infructuous. The Court examined the status of the petition and concluded that it could no longer be pursued. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of as infructuous, and the interim application was also dismissed. The petitioners were directed to seek any appropriate remedy in the future.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition remains maintainable or has become infructuous

Subjects

infructuous petition
writ petition
disposal
civil procedure
high court

Judgment

                                                     1/2         02-IA-3713-26-IN-WP-L-547-20.odt

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                         WRIT PETITION (L) NO.547 OF 2020

                         Digital Cable Operator’s Association
                         of Mumbai & Ors.                               …. Petitioners

                               versus

                         Union of India & Anr.                          .... Respondents

                                                       WITH

                                       INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3713 OF 2016
                                                        IN
                                         WRIT PETITION (L) NO.547 OF 2020

                         Telecom Regulatory Authority of India          ....Applicant/
                                                                            Respondent No.2

                         IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

                         Digital Cable Operator’s Association
                         of Mumbai & Anr.                               …. Petitioners

                              versus

                         Union of India & Anr.                          .... Respondents
                                                        …....

                         •   Mr. Ashish Mehta, Advocate for Applicant/Respondent No.2.
                         •   Mr. Rahul Soman, Advocate for Petitioners.
                         •   Mr. Amit Maru a/w A. N. Mehta i/b. M/s. Ethoes Legal
MANUSHREE                    Alliance, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
NESARIKAR

Digitally signed by
MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR                                CORAM      : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
Date: 2026.08.25
11:08:59 +0530                                        RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
                                         DATE       : 24th AUGUST, 2026
             Nesarikar
                                2/2        02-IA-3713-26-IN-WP-L-547-20.odt



P.C. :


1.            Learned counsel for the Applicant/Respondent No.2

     states that the Petition has become infructuous. Learned counsel

     for the original Respondent No.2 has filed Interim Application

     No.3713 of 2026 in the same Writ Petition accepting the fact

     that the Petition has become infructuous at this stage.



2.            The Petition is disposed of as having become

     infructuous.



3.            The Petitioners are at liberty to adopt appropriate

     remedy in future.



4.            Along with the disposal of the Petition, the Interim

     Application is also disposed of.




(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.)              (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.