R. Seyalarasan v. The Managing Director

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.06.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and WMP(MD)No.19363 of 2019 R.Seyalarasan ... Petitioner v.

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd., 34/123, 6th Floor, Dukar Tower, Marsal Salai, Chennai - 600 008.

2.The Special Tahsildar / Assistant Manager, Tamil Nadu Cable TV Corporation Ltd., Trichy District.

3.N.Shanmugam ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to take action against the third respondent for not providing Tamil Nadu Arasu 1/4

Cable TV Digital Signal in compliance with the order of the first respondent dated 13.09.2019 and to ensure that undisturbed Digital Signal is provided to the petitioner in the existing network line without insisting on laying fresh optic fiber line, based on the representation of the petitioner dated 03.10.2019.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondents : Mr.Daniel Sundar Singh, Standing Counsel for R.1, R.2 No appearance for R.3 *****

ORDER

The petitioner, vide allotment order dated 13.09.2019, was permitted as a LCO of Kirambur Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District. According to the petitioner, one Shanmugam / third respondent herein, a Digital Distributor TACTV has not provided him signal, though the petitioner was permitted by the first respondent as LCO. His further grievance is that the Special Tahsildar / second respondent has also failed to take appropriate action as against the third respondent and therefore, he filed this writ petition in the 2/4

year 2019 for a direction to take action against the third respondent for not providing signal in compliance with the order of the first respondent dated 13.09.2019.

2.While entertaining this writ petition in the year 2019, this Court ordered notice to the third respondent and also permitted the petitioner to take private notice. It is seen from the records that the third respondent refused to receive the Court notice. It appears that the official respondents have also not preferred to file any counter affidavit. This Court, by order dated 21.06.2023, has also provided an opportunity to the official respondents to file their response. Even thereafter, the respondents have not come forward to file their counter affidavit.

3.Considering the nature of allegations raised and the conduct of the official respondents in responding to the writ petition, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation as to the allegations levelled in this petition to the first respondent / Managing Director within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of 3/4

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

gk this order. On receipt of the same, the first respondent shall conduct an enquiry and take appropriate action, as against the persons involved, after providing due opportunity of hearing, within a further period of twelve weeks therefrom.

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Index :

Yes / No 28.06.2023 NCC :

Yes / No gk 4/4