P.Ramachandran v. The Managing Director

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.06.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and W.M.P.(MD)No.15912 and 15913 of 2016 W.P.(MD)No.22216 of 2016 P.Ramachandran ... Petitioner versus ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to reduce and refix the monthly carriage amount until to 1/6

providing the fiber cable in the entire Taluk of Ramanathapuram District.

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Ms.Annie Abinaya, Standing Counsel W.P.(MD)No.22217 of 2016 M.Jaganathan ... Petitioner versus ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to reduce and refix the monthly carriage amount until to providing the fiber cable in the entire Taluk of Ramanathapuram District.

2/6

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Ms.Annie Abinaya, Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER These writ petitions have been filed for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to reduce and refix the monthly carriage amount till the respondents provide fiber cable in the entire Taluk of Ramanathapuram District.

2. These writ petitions, which were filed in the year 2016, were listed for hearing on 14.06.2017. On that day, there was no representation for the petitioners. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioners.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents have not provided fiber cable throughout Ramanathapuram District and they have not provided any facility to carry the network to the entire Taluk 3/6

of Ramanathapuram and therefore, the demand raised by the respondents is exorbitant.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Tamilnadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation submits that the petitioners are Private Local Channels and they have obtained PLC licence from the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation. Apart from these petitioners, there are eight other Private Local Channels and they were also functioning at that relevant point of time. The other private local channels have not raised any such issue and these petitioners, in order to evade the payment, have raised this issue and filed these writ petitions. She further submits that the petitioners are having fibber cables and with the help of fiber cables, the entire broadcast was made by the Local Cable TV operators and it is also nothing to do with the connection of each Cable TV operator and therefore, the petitioners are not having any merits in these writ petitions.

4/6

5. With regard to the demand raised by the respondents, except the petitioners, other Private Local Channels have not raised any objections. It appears that there is no merit in the petition. Moreover, there is no representation for the petitioner even though it is listed under the caption "For Dismissal".

7. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 19.06.2023 ogy NCC : Yes / No.

Index : Yes / No.

Internet : Yes / No.

5/6

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy To 19.06.2023 6/6