After reading out the appellate decision, the high court issued a press release clarifying that its review did not touch on the fine that may incur from the station's delayed and partial payments of concession fees.

The financial penalty will be worked out between the parties and had never been raised in the judicial review as was speculated, the court said.

The administrative litigation involved the Prime Minister's Office as the complainant and iTV as the accused. The disputed parties signed a 30-year joint-venture contract for UHF television broadcast in July 1995.

In exchange for a concession, the station agreed to an escalating-fee payment plan and to broadcast only news programme during prime time (7pm to 9pm).

At the station's suggestion, the Office of the Attorney General, which was responsible for scrutinising the draft contract, inserted a clause, known as Article 5 paragraph 4, empowering the station to seek an arbitration ruling to revise concession fees.

The arbitration would be activated if authorities allowed a new broadcaster or a cable television service to air commercials.

In 1999, the station invoked the clause to petition the PM's Office for a review of its concession fees.

The PM's Office refused to negotiate the contractual revision and the station appealed for mediation by the arbitration board.

In January 2004, the board ruled in favour of the station. It ordered the PM's Office to pay Bt20 million in damages to the station. The damages were calculated from commercials that Channel 11 took away.

The board approved the station's request to revise its programming. The station would be allowed to include entertainment during prime time and could cut its news content from 70 per cent to no less than 50 per cent.

The station's concession fees would be revised either as a flat rate of Bt230 million per year or a new charge of 6.5 per cent of annual revenues before tax, depending on which was higher.

The flat rate fee was equivalent to that paid by Channel 7 and the new charge was on par with the UBC contract.

The station's original fees were based on the escalating rate: 22.5 per cent of revenues in the third year of operation, 35 per cent the from fourth to the sixth year and 44 per cent in the remaining years.

Should revenues fall below expectations, the station guaranteed the minimum payment for Bt300 million in the third year. The payment would have an incremental increase of Bt100 million per year till the tenth year. The fees would total Bt20 billion.

The PM's Office petitioned the Central Administrative Court to overturn the arbitration ruling.

The lower court overruled the arbitration board. It said the clause empowering the station to revise the fees was void because its inclusion had no proper sanction and its content altered the contract as approved by the Cabinet.

The station appealed to the high court that the PM's Office had in effect wavered its right to question the clause because it did not question the mediation process nor the mandate of the arbitration board.

The high court ruled that even though the PM's Office failed to contest the validity of the clause before the appellate review, this did not change the fact that the clause was inserted improperly at the station's prodding.

Under relevant laws on state-private joint ventures, the clause was deemed invalid and unenforceable. The arbitration board had no legal basis for its ruling.

Furthermore, the mediation and the subsequent administrative litigation were centred on the handling of airwaves allocated for television broadcast. Since airwaves are public property, the related issues are deemed to have a public impact.

Under the arbitration law, courts are empowered to review the mediation process if relevant issues have implications to society. This gave the lower court its jurisdiction to overturn the arbitration decision.

And the high court agreed with its verdict.