Madras High CourtWP/6217/2018disposed of

P.A.Gowthaman @ Raja v. The Secretary,

2021-08-12Honourable Mr Justice R. Mahadevan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.08.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN Writ Petition No.6217 of 2018 P.A. Gowthaman @ Raja Gowthaman Son of Paneer Selvam Director M/s. S.G. Digital Video Systems Pvt Ltd., Door No.29, Mannai Nagar Mannargudi Taluk Thiruvarur District - 614 001 .. Petitioner

Versus

1. The Secretary TRAI Mahanagar Door Shanchar Bhawan Jawaharlal Nehru Marg Old Minto Road Near Dr. Zakir Hussain College New Delhi - 110 002

2. The Secretary The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting No.116, "A" Wing, Shastri Bhavan New Delhi - 110 001

3. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited Dugar Towers, 6th Floor No.123, Marshalls Road, Egmore Chennai - 600 008

4. The Deputy Manager/The Special Thasildhar No.3/322, Marutham Nagar Vilamal, Thiruvarur - 614 001

5. The Tahsildar Santhamangalam KTR Nagar, Mannargudi

6. The District Collector Collector Office Master Plan Complex Thiruvarur

7. The Revenue Divisional Officer VOC Road, Mannargudi Thiruvarur - 614 001

8. The Superintendent of Police District Police Office Master Plan Collector Complex Thiruvarur H.O. (Behind Collector Office)

9. The Chief Secretary Office Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009

10. The DGP of Office Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004

11. Mr. Madhan @ Madhanagopal Son of Palaniraj Vaanakkaratheru Mannargudi - 614 001 Office at Sivaprakasah Madatheru District Cable Operator .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondents 3 to 8 through the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and 9 and 10 from taking any action of any kind against the petitioner, who is having DAS Licence (Digital Administration System) issued by the second respondent on 15.02.2016 to the Petitioner as per terms of the regulation of the first respondent and in accordance with Cable Television Networks (Regulations) Act, 1995 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 17.11.2017.

For Petitioner : Mr. L. Chandrakumar For Respondents : Mr. S. Diwakar, SPC for RR1 and 2 Mr. Abdul Saleem for R3 Mr. G. Krishnaraja Government Counsel for RR4 to 10

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondents 3 to 8, through the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and 9 and 10 from taking any action of any kind against the petitioner, who is having DAS Licence (Digital Administration System) issued by the second respondent on 15.02.2016 as per terms of the regulation of the first respondent and in accordance with Cable Television Networks (Regulations) Act, 1995 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 17.11.2017.

The petitioner would state that he is a cable TV operator functioning in Mannargudi Taluk even prior to the constitution of the Arasu Cable TV Corporation in the year 2011. While so, as per the Regulations issued by the first respondent for digitalizing the Cable TV operations, he had obtained Digital Administration System (DAS) Licence. Subsequently, Arasu Cable TV Corporation also obtained DAS License from the second respondent. After obtaining such licence, the respondents 3 and 8 are threatening all the Cable TV Operators in the District not to function under the DAS Licence and to give it up totally so as to create a monopoly in the business in favour of the third respondent. In this context, the respondents 3 and 4 are also misleading the respondents 5 to 8 to take action against independent DAS License holders without any basis.

In case of violation of the licence condition, the official respondents have to take recourse to Section 11 of the Cable TV Television Network (Regulations) Act, 1995, however, without doing so, unilaterally the third respondent is attempting to close down the cable TV Operations of the DAS licence holders through unlawful means. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation on 17.11.2017 to the official respondents, but it was not acted upon. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

On the above contention, this Court heard the respective counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents are not in a position to state as to whether any action has been taken on the representation dated 17.11.2017 or not.

4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, without expressing any opinion as regards the grievance expressed by the petitioner, directs the petitioner to submit a copy of the representation dated 17.11.2017 to the sixth respondent along with a copy of this order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the sixth respondent is directed to

consider the representation dated 17.11.2017 of the petitioner, if not considered earlier, afford an opportunity of hearing to him and others concerned, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks thereafter. 5.

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rsh To