Criticising the attitude of Bennett Coleman and Star Entertainment, Justice M Jaagannadha Rao and Justice S Rajendra Babu, observed that the two companies were trying to monopolise the FM channel broadcast and advised them to participate in fresh auctions.

Both the companies have filed petitions against the Delhi High Court order, which, too, had upheld the Prasar Bharati decision to go in for fresh auctions that would fetch more revenue to the board. The high court had, nevertheless, granted extension to the two companies to air their programmes on the FM channel till June 26 after which the Prasar Bharati refused to grant any extension.

The Supreme Court also rejected Bennett Coleman's plea to grant a fresh extension for aninterim period as the tenders for auction could not be opened due to a stay granted by the MRTP Commission and the government stands to loose revenue during this period.

The court also expressed unhappiness over the increase in number of court cases even after an agreement was reached between the board and all litigants that they would withdraw cases relating to time-slots on FM channel.

Prasar Bharati lawyers argued that the Board was finding it difficult to go ahead with the tender process as several cases have been filed in Chennai, Calcutta and Delhi high courts as well as in MRTPC seeking extension of existing contracts.

The Supreme Court also expressed its annoyance at the campaign launched in a national daily for renewal of existing contracts of Bennett Coleman. "It was most unfortunate on the part of the newspaper to indulge in this kind of exercise after taking time from the court to come prepared with the case to continue pleadings," the judges observed. They observed that the attempts by thenewspaper to create an impression that courts can be influenced by citing public opinion was "highly improper and amounts to insinuation."