Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellants are the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.6546/2016. The said writ petition was one filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 not to permit respondents 4 and 5 or any other cable television operators to draw cables through the electric poles through which the appellants are given right to draw cables in connection with their cable TV operations as per Ext.P2 agreement. The appellants have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to consider Ext.P5 representation submitted by them forthwith.

2. The learned Single Judge by the judgment dated 09.06.2016 dismissed the writ petition holding that, if at all the petitioner has a contention that there is violation of the agreement, the proper remedy is not to approach this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has also noticed the contention raised on behalf of the Kerala State Electricity Board that there is no restrictive clause in Ext.P2 agreement which prevents the KSEB from permitting cables to be drawn through the electric poles by other Cable TV operators. Feeling Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellants are before this Court in this writ appeal.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB, representing respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5.

4. According to the appellants, they are conducting cable TV operations after drawing cables through electric poles (LT poles) maintained by the KSEB. Ext.P2 is a copy of the agreement executed between the 1st appellant and the 3rd respondent, by which M/s. Star Tech Cable Network, Malayattoor has been permitted to use electric poles for drawing cable TV network, subject to the conditions specified therein. Ext.P3 receipt would show the remittance made by the 1st appellant towards pole rental and service charges.

5. The grievance in the writ petition was against steps taken by the KSEB permitting respondents 4 and 5 to draw cable network through the very same electric poles through which the 1st appellant has drawn cable network on the strength of Ext.P2 agreement. Alleging that respondents 4 and 5 tried to cause obstruction to the cable TV operation conducted pursuant to Ext.P2 agreement, the appellants have approached the Munsiff's Court, Aluva in O.S.No.713/2015 and obtained Ext.P4 interim injunction restraining respondents 4 and 5 herein from destroying the cables lawfully installed by the appellants, causing damage to the connections and doing anything which may cause obstruction to the functioning of channels, until further orders. Thereafter, the appellants have also moved Ext.P5 representation before the 3rd respondent against the steps taken to permit respondents 4 and 5 to draw cables through the electric poles covered by Ext.P2 agreement.

6. In the writ petition, the case put forward by the appellants herein is that, the 1st appellant remitted pole rental with the 3rd respondent and executed Ext.P2 agreement to exclusively use the poles specified in the agreement to draw cables for cable TV network operations. The pole rental and other charges were remitted with the bona fide belief that electric poles can be used exclusively. If other operators are permitted to use the same poles, it would adversely affect the business prospects of the appellant.

7. It is on the strength of Ext.P2 agreement executed between the 1st appellant and the 3rd respondent, M/s. Star Tech Cable Network, Malayattoor has been permitted to use electric poles for drawing cable TV network, subject to the conditions specified therein. As provided in Clause 1 of Ext.P2 agreement, the specification on technical and safety standards in the guidelines set by the KSEB vide B.O.(FB)(GI)No.443/2012 (DPCII/Asianet-2/2011) dated 25.02.2012, as amended from time to time, shall form part of the agreement and shal