N. Anjali Devi, v. Telecom Regulatory Authority
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.07.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 N.Anjali Devi ... Petitioner Vs.
1. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, represented by its Chairman Maha Nagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd., No.11/22, Mangadusami Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
3. The Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd., Karur.
... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the 1/6
records relating to the impugned order in proceedings No. 4304/TACTV/Legal/2012-8 dated 30.11.2012 passed by the second respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For R1 : Mr.N.S.Ponniah For R2 : Mr.S.Sades Kumar For R3 : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the second respondent herein under which the online registered number of the writ petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has created false record and she has taken illegal cable connection from the main line, instead of, from the control room.
2. As per the impugned order, the writ petitioner is not the existing cable operator. The impugned order is under challenge mainly on the ground that the second respondent has passed the present 2/6
impugned order without issuing any notice to the writ petitioner. That apart, she contended that she is the cable TV operator and contended that she was issued with license from the Post Master. Hence, the observation in the impugned order that she is not the cable operator is not correct.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that she has not illegally taken any line and she is the authorized cable TV operator.
4. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that certain allegations as against the writ petitioner are that she has drawn illegal connection and her license has been cancelled.
5. Heard both the parties.
6. Admittedly, the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent herein without issuing a show cause notice. The allegations in the impugned order are serious in nature and having civil 3/6
consequences. Hence, the impugned order which has been passed without issuing a show cause notice is not sustainable in law.
7. In view of the above said facts, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the file of the second respondent herein for fresh consideration.
8. With the above said observations, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.07.2022 Index :
Yes / No Internet :
Yes / No jbr 4/6
To
1. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, represented by its Chairman Maha Nagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd., No.11/22, Mangadusami Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
3. The Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd., Karur.
5/6
R.
VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.
jbr Order made in 14.07.2022 6/6