P.Dhayanithi v. The Secretary To Government Of India,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 05.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD)Nos.5062 and 5070 of 2026 P.Dhayanithi ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.6025/2026 M.Radhakrishnan ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.6026/2026 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/Nodal 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.
5.The Assistant Manager/Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation, Thoothukudi.
... Respondents 1 to 5 in both W.Ps 6.A.Muthuraj ... Respondent in W.P(MD)No.6025/26 6.U.Muthukumar ... Respondent in W.P(MD)No.6026/26 Writ Petitions are filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to deactivate all the Set top boxed activated by the 4th respondent pursuant to injunction granted by this Court in W.P(MD)No.25952 to 25956 of 2025 dated 22.09.2025, based on the representation of the petitioner dated 26.02.2026.
For Petitioner :Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For R1 & R2 :Mr.K.Govindarajan, DSGI For R3 :Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar, Government Advocate For R4 & R5 :Mr.J.R.Annie Abinaya, Addl. St. Counsel (in both W.Ps) COMMON ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioners by pointing out to the relevant provisions would submit that interim orders have been granted in the earlier writ petitions.
2.The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India would submit that the writ petition is filed directing the respondents to deactivate all the set top boxes activated by the 4th respondent, pursuant to the 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 26.02.2026.
3.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the case of the petitioner is that when the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has taken a policy decision that the State owned undertakings cannot distribute the set top boxes or appoint LCOs, the same is continuously being done by the 4th respondent. As a matter of fact, considering the very same issue earlier interim injunctions were granted, even thereafter, the activities are continuing and therefore the petitioner is before this Court.
4.The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India taking notice on behalf of the respondents 1and 2 would submit that it is true that policy decision has been taken not to permit any State owned public sector undertaking to operate a cable television, but however, he would submit that the very same matter is sub judice in the earlier round of writ petitions and the second writ petition filed seeking mandamus to implement the earlier order is not maintainable.
5.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent would submit that the legal position is that the 4th respondent distribute set top boxes and would submit that earlier the very same petitioner has filed W.P(MD).No.25956 of 2025. They are only distributing the set top boxes to
the existing licensees. The very same prayer in this writ petition is made an interim prayer in the earlier writ petition.
6.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
7.It is necessary to advert to the earlier order that is mentioned in the prayer. It can be seen that the petitioner herein viz., P Dayanidhi is the writ petitioner in W.P(MD)No.25956 of 2025. The prayer in the earlier writ petition in WP MD Number 25955 of 2025 reads as follows: "Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to cancel the Local Cable Operators and direct disconnection of Set Top Boxes provided after the cut-off dated of 31.12.2023 pursuant to the 1st respondents Notification dated 21.10.2022 based on the representation of the petitioner dated 19.08.2025 and pass such other or further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice."
As a matter of fact, the interim prayer made in the earlier writ petition reads thus.
"To grant an order of interim injunction restraining the
fourth respondent from granting any new local cable operators and providing any new Set Top Boxes to any customers pursuant to notification dated 21.10.2022 issued by the 1st respondent pending disposal of the writ petition and thus render justice."
8.Therefore, I am of the view that the prayers in the earlier round and the present writ petition are identical and there need not be any multiple writ petitions for the same relief. Even if any other additional act is performed, it will be open for the petitioner to move such application in the very same writ petition. This writ petition is only superfluous and therefore, need not be entertained. Therefore, giving such liberty to the petitioners to raise all the grounds in the earlier pending writ petitions, these writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
05.03.2026 NCC:Yes/No Ns D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Ns 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 3.The District Collector/Nodal Officer(Cable TV) Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
and W.M.P(MD)Nos.5062 and 5070 of 2026 05.03.2026