M.Paramasivam v. The Secretary To Government Of India
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.06.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD)No.4161 of 2026 M.Paramasivam ... Petitioner .Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Room No.116, 'A' Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2.The Section Officer (DAS), Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Room No.116, 'A' Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
3.The District Collector/Nodel Officer (Cable TV), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
4.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation, 807, Anna Salai, 4th Floor, P.T.Lee. Chengalvaraya Naicker Trust Building, Chennai-600 002.
1/8
5.The Assistant Manager/Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation, Thoothukudi.
6.Devika 7.Kaliraj ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to deactivate all the set top boxes activated by the fourth respondent pursuant to injunction granted by this Court in W.P(MD)Nos.25952 to 25956 of 2025, dated 22.09.2025, based on the representation of the petitioner dated 03.02.2026. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondents : Mr.K.Govindarajan Deputy Solicitor General of India for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Parthiban Government Standing Counsel for R3 M/s.J.Annie Abinaya for R4
O R D E R
The writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to deactivate all the Set Top Boxes activated by the fourth respondent pursuant to injunction granted by this Court in 2/8
W.P(MD)Nos.25952 to 25956 of 2025, dated 22.09.2025, based on the representation of the petitioner dated 03.02.2026.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, by relying upon the communication dated 21.10.2022 issued by the first respondent, would submit that all the State Government Departments/Public Sector Undertakings were already directed to discontinue the business of broadcasting/distribution of broadcasting activities. Pursuant to the said decision of the first respondent, read with the license, condition No.2 imposed on the fourth respondent dated 17.04.2017, the license stands automatically lapsed. Once the license has lapsed, it is contended that, in terms of Rules 11 and 11A of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, the provisional registration also stands lapsed, and by virtue of Rule 11, the fourth respondent cannot conduct any business at all. Therefore, apart from the prayer, that is, made in respect of deactivation of Set Top Boxes allegedly activated in violation of the injunction order in W.P.(MD)Nos.25952 to 25956 of 2025, it is submitted that directions must also be issued to deactivate the Set Top Boxes already provided to the existing operators. 3/8
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent would submit that the prayer in the writ petition is to deactivate the Set Top Boxes, pursuant to the injunction granted by this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.25952 to 25956 of 2025. By the said order, the Court had directed the fourth respondent not to appoint any LCOs. She would also submit that no new LCOs have been appointed thereafter, and therefore, there is no question of deactivating the Set Top Boxes. With reference to the other contention, the learned counsel would submit that the communication dated 21.10.2022 is only an advisory, and that is also not on clear-cut terms to discontinue the business. In any event, the fourth respondent, has challenged the same by way of W.P.No.35440 of 2023, and the same is pending.
Therefore, the relief sought for, which goes beyond the scope of the original prayer made in the writ petition, cannot be granted. She would further submit that the private operators such as the petitioner are charging more than Rs.350/- from the common public, whereas the fourth respondent is providing services only at Rs. 165/-.
appropriate steps have already been taken before the Government as well as this Court for review of the decision.
4. In reply thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the private operators are following only the National Tariff Order and are not exorbitantly charging the customers. He would further submit that it is not only an advisory, but specific orders of cancellation of licence have also been passed.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
6. As far as the prayer made in the writ petition is concerned, the direction is sought pursuant to the order of injunction granted in W.P.(MD)Nos.25952 to 25956 of 2025. The injunction was granted by restraining TAC TV from appointing any new Local Cable Operators pending disposal of the writ petition. It is now placed on record that no new LCOs have been appointed. Therefore, the prayer made in the writ petition stands satisfied and the same is recorded. As far as the other 5/8
prayer made in the writ petition is concerned, a complete reading of the communication dated 21.10.2022, shows that it is titled advisory. The first condition relates to entering into broadcasting/distribution activities in future. Even with reference to broadcasting, it is mentioned in Clause (ii) that it shall be done through the Public Broadcaster. In this case, the issue concerns the distributing activities. As far as distribution activities are concerned, the advisory states that they will be required to extract themselves from such activities. Further it is also mentioned that the educational and other channels should continue uninterruptedly.
A complete reading of the advisory shows that it is only a preliminary policy direction, and I am not in a position to read the same as a complete ban on the fourth respondent from continuing its business. In any event, it is stated that, as far as the said subject matter is concerned, the same is pending in W.P.No.35440 of 2023. Eventhough it is pleaded that specific orders of cancellation has been passed, no such order has been placed before this Court.
7. Considering the fact that the element of public interest is also involved, inasmuch as the fourth respondent is providing services at a 6/8
lower tariff, I am not in a position to travel beyond the scope of the prayer made in the writ petition or grant the relief sought for by the petitioner.
8. In view thereof and in the light of the submission that no LCOs have been appointed by the fourth respondent after the order of injunction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.06.2026 NCC : Yes/No sji To 1.The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Room No.116, 'A' Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2.The Section Officer (DAS), Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Room No.116, 'A' Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
7/8
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.,J.
sji 3.The District Collector/Nodel Officer (Cable TV), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
15.06.2026 8/8