Spice Television Private Limited vs Government of Bangladesh and Ors.
Citation: 73 DLR (HCD) 143
Jurisdiction : Bangladesh
Petitioner: Spice Television Private Limited
Respondent: Government of Bangladesh and Ors.
Facts :
Spice Television Private Limited, a private company, received a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Ministry of Information on 9 August 2017 to operate a satellite TV channel. Based on this, it applied to BTRC (Respondent No. 3) for frequency allocation on 27 August 2017 and again on 12 February 2019, but no final decision was made. To seek redress, the petitioner issued a legal notice on 24 February 2019. BTRC had meanwhile sought clearance from DGFI, NSI, and the Ministry of Home Affairs. DGFI and NSI responded positively, but the Ministry of Home Affairs remained unresponsive despite several reminders. Though BTRC temporarily allocated 6 MHz frequency in December 2017 for equipment import, no permanent allocation followed. As the matter remained unresolved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 102(2)(a)(i), upon which the High Court issued a Rule and interim direction on 14 March 2019. In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs was added as Respondent No. 4.
Issues :
1. Whether Respondent No. 3 (BTRC) failed to act lawfully and in a timely manner under the Telecommunication Act, 2001.
2. Whether the petitioner had a legitimate expectation to receive frequency allocation based on NOC and long-standing follow-up.
3. Whether the delay by Respondent No. 4 (Ministry of Home Affairs) invalidates BTRC’s authority or shifts its responsibility.
Arguments :
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that BTRC had full legal authority under Sections 55 and 56(8) of the Bangladesh Telecommunication Act, 2001 to allocate frequency, yet failed to make a decision for more than three years. They further submitted that the Ministry of Home Affairs’ lack of response should not have stopped BTRC from acting, as the law empowers BTRC to proceed. The petitioner claimed they had a legitimate expectation to receive the frequency based on the NOC and continuous follow-up, and the long delay caused them unfair harm.
To support their claim for a writ of mandamus, the petitioner referred to several important judgments, including 55 DLR AD 130, 46 DLR AD 148, and 65 DLR AD 145.
Respondent’s Arguments:
BTRC submitted that it took all necessary steps under the law by requesting security clearances from the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence, National Security Intelligence, and the Ministry of Home Affairs after receiving the petitioner’s application. While DGFI and NSI issued their clearances within the expected time, the Ministry of Home Affairs did not respond, despite several reminders over an extended period. BTRC further stated that, although permanent frequency could not be granted without the Ministry’s clearance, it approved a temporary frequency in December 2017 to support the petitioner’s operational readiness. It asserted that all actions were taken with due diligence, in good faith, and in accordance with legal obligations.
Decisions :
The Court made the Rule absolute and directed Respondent No. 3, BTRC, to take immediate and lawful action in accordance with the Rule, preferably within two months from the date of judgment. While acknowledging that BTRC acted in good faith, the Court emphasized that BTRC possesses full statutory authority to allocate frequency and must now exercise this authority independently without further undue delay. The Court held that the continued non-response of the Ministry of Home Affairs cannot indefinitely impede the petitioner’s lawful rights. The Court reaffirmed the principle that a writ of mandamus under Article 102(2)(a)(i) of the Constitution may be issued to compel a public authority to perform its legal duties.
Relevant Legal Principle :
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation is a principle in administrative law that protects individuals against abrupt or unfair changes in government policy or decisions, especially when they have been led to expect a certain treatment based on past actions, promises, or established practices of public authorities. However, legitimate expectation can be overridden only by valid public interest. In such cases, valid reasons or public interest to deny the legitimate expectation must be established.
Relevant Laws:
- The Constitution of People’s Republic of Bangladesh
- Article: 102(2)(a)(i)
- The Bangladesh Telecommunication Act, 2001
- Section: 55, 56(8)
Author :
1. Fuad Hasan
Note : The Case Summary is a platform by the law students, for the law students. We aim to summarize the facts and decisions of various important cases in both Bangla and English with utmost caution. However, this platform is in no way a replacement for going through the complete judgements by the law students and we discourage any learner from relying on case summaries alone. Thank you
