R.Alagarsamy S/O. Ramasamy v. Tamilnadu Arasu Cable Tv
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P.(MD)No.5206 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No.4187 of 2017 R.Alagarsamy ... Petitioner /Vs./ 1.Tamilnadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd, Rep. by its Managing Director, Dugar Towers 6th Floor, O.No.34, N.No.123, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai 08.
2.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.
3.The Special Thasildar, Tamilnadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd, District Collector Office, Tuticorin.
4.The Inspector of Police, West Police Station, 5.Karthikeyan 1/5
6.The Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Operators Welfare Sangam, Rep.By its President, Manokaran, Muthu Complex, Opp.Railway Station, 7.K.Shanmugaiah
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third and fifth respondent herein not to grant MSO connection to the seventh respondent herein within the period stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sekar For R1, R3 & R6 : Ms.Annie Abinaya Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.Vaikkam Karunanidhi Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R7 : Ms.Porkodi Karnan For R5 & R6 : No appearance
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 2017 to forbear the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation from granting any MSO connection to the seventh respondent.
2/5
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running Cable TV business in the name and style of "Sri Ram Cable" in Old Appaneri and the extension areas at Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District for the past about fifteen years. He has also obtained LCO (Local Cable Operator) License from the first respondent. While so, the seventh respondent applied for LCO license in respect of the same locality. Though the petitioner made objections for grant of license to the seventh respondent, the license was granted to him. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition. 3.The learned Standing counsel appearing for Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation states that the seventh respondent was already recognized as Local Cable Operator and he has been provided with signals. Further, the petitioner was the Local Cable Operator for some time and he has obtained 120 set-top boxes. However, he could not obtain any connection. Hence, the petitioner had returned all the set-top boxes obtained by him and as on date, the petitioner is no more an LCO of Arasu Cable TV.
4.This Court heard the rival submissions made on either side. 3/5
5.Admittedly, the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation has recognized the seventh respondent as Local Cable Operator for the extension area in Kovilpatti. The petitioner cannot prevent the Corporation from providing signals to the seventh respondent.
6.With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 05.01.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ta To 1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.
2.The Inspector of Police, West Police Station, 4/5
B.PUGALENDHI,J.
ta 05.01.2024 5/5