Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mohammed Nias C.P., J.
Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Kerala, Represented By The Secretary, Power Department – Respondent
WP(C) Nos.40017 of 2024, 29079 of 2022, 25201 of 2021, 25574 of 2020, 29878 of 2018, 35892 of 2019, 30646 of 2024, 38386 of 2024, 44166 of 2023, 10780 of 2025, 24281 of 2025, 24825 of 2025, 26617 of 2025, 28901 of 2025, 29253 of 2025, 34810 of 2025, 35490 of 2025, 39930 of 2025, 12680 of 2024, 44221 of 2025, 46679 of 2025, 36973 of 2024, 43770 of 2024, 45993 of 2024
Decided On : 05-02-2026
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal points are as follows:
The court has held that pole rental rates for telecommunication services provided by wired internet operators must conform to the statutory caps established under the Telecommunications Rights of Way Rules, which limit charges to Rs.100 per pole per annum (!) (!) (!) .
The statutory framework under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, and the associated Right of Way Rules, 2024, explicitly include electricity poles within the scope of "street furniture" and "overground telecommunication network," making the use of such poles subject to the prescribed statutory ceilings (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Rules enacted under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, are comprehensive and override any inconsistent administrative orders or internal policies of public utilities like KSEBL or local authorities, effectively mandating that pole rental charges cannot exceed the ceilings prescribed in the Rules (!) (!) .
The classification of the petitioners as "facility providers" under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, is crucial. Since they hold valid authorizations and licences for providing wired internet services and IPTV, they are entitled to seek right-of-way permissions under the statutory regime and are governed by the Rules for charges applicable to telecommunication infrastructure (!) (!) (!) .
The legal regime clearly distinguishes between services such as mobile telephony and wired internet, with the latter not falling under higher mobile pole rental categories. The petitioners' licences and authorizations restrict them to wired internet and IPTV services, excluding mobile or spectrum-based services, which justifies their claim for lower pole rental rates (!) (!) .
The demands for pole rentals exceeding Rs.100 per pole per annum are deemed illegal and without jurisdiction, as they violate the statutory ceilings set in the Rules. Any such demands are to be quashed and corrected in accordance with the statutory framework (!) (!) .
The authorities, including KSEBL and local bodies, are bound to process right-of-way applications and impose charges strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions and the ceilings prescribed in the Rules. They cannot rely on internal policies, past agreements, or resolutions that conflict with the statutory ceiling (!) (!) .
The overarching legal principle is that the statutory rights and obligations related to pole rentals are governed by the specific provisions of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, and the Rules framed thereunder, which have overriding effect over any inconsistent laws or policies (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal judgment emphasizes that pole rental charges for wired telecommunication infrastructure must adhere to the ceilings prescribed in the Central Rules, and any demands beyond this are unlawful. The classification and licensing of the petitioners as telecommunication service providers entitle them to these statutory protections and rights.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of excessive pole rental rates. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners argue against arbitrary demands. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court analysis on definitions and statutory framework. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. determination of applicable pole rental charges. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. final ruling on the demands and direction for revision. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT :
In W.P.(C) Nos. 40017/2024, 35892/2019, 29878/2018, 25574/2020, 25201/2021, 29079/2022, 30646/2024 and 38386/2024, the writ petitioners challenge the demand notices issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited and the Thrissur Municipal Corporation, the latter being the licensee and electricity distribution authority within the Thrissur Corporation limits, demanding pole rentals at rates alleged to be exorbitant and inconsistent with the applicable Government Orders and the statutory Right of Way Rules.
2. The details of the said writ petitions are given in the tables below:
Permissible Rates according to the petitioner v. Demanded Rates fixed by KSEB in WPC No. 40017/2024:
Permissible Rates according to the petitioner v. Demanded Rates as fixed by Thrissur Corporation:
3. The writ petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 40017/2024, 35892/2019, 29878/2018, 25574/2020, 25201/2021, 29079/2022, 30646/2024 and 38386/2024 are Asianet Satellite Communications Limited, who is a cable TV and wired-internet service provider operating under valid licences issued under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter ‘Telegraph Act’) and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter ‘Cable Television Act’). Their networks are established using electricity distribution poles of the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (hereinafter ‘KSEBL’), under long-standing agreements periodically renewed from 1992 onwards. According to the petitioners, they have always provided cable TV and internet through the same cable and the same network, for which a single pole-rental scheme was consistently followed.
3.1. After a mediation settlement in 2011, pole rentals stood fixed at Rs.250 for urban poles and Rs.125 for rural poles, with a 5% annual increase, and this arrangement continued for a decade. The petitioners assert that the State Government subsequently issued a series of binding Government Orders, GO(MS) No. 9/2021/Power dated 26.02.2021, GO(MS) No. 11/2021/Power dated 02.03.2021, and GO(MS) No. 14/2021/Power dated 08.07.2021, fixing uniform pole- rental rates of Rs.300 (urban) and Rs.145 (rural) with 3% annual increase, without any distinction between cable TV and internet services. These Government Orders were fully accepted and adopted by KSEBL through subsequent Board Orders, specifically Board Order dated 13.08.2021. The petitioners submit that, based on these orders and on specific assurances given by the Government, including in meetings chaired by the Hon’ble Chief Minister, particularly in the context of digital-access expansion during the pandemic, they made substantial investments and were assured a 10-year agreement period, which KSEBL also subsequently approved.
3.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that, despite this statutory and policy framework, KSEBL has issued a series of exorbitant demands treating the petitioners as though they were mobile telecom providers (2G/3G/4G), applying rates in excess of Rs.550 for urban poles and Rs.280 for rural poles. The petitioners emphatically contend that they do not possess Access Service Licences, do not use spectrum, and do not provide mobile voice/SMS services; hence, the mobile-service pole-rental category has no application to wired-internet providers such as themselves.
3.3. The petitioners further rely on the Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016 (hereinafter ‘the 2016 RoW Rules’), as amended in 2021 and 2022, which mandate that public authorities, including KSEBL as an “appropriate authority”, can levy only (i) a one-time compensation not exceeding Rs.1000 per kilometre (f
The court held that pole rental rates for telecommunication services provided by wired internet operators must adhere to the statutory caps established under the Telecommunications Rights of Way Rule....
Statutory authorities can erect high-tension electricity towers on private land without prior consent, provided they ensure minimal damage and compensate affected parties, in adherence to public inte....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a transmission licensee, constituted as a Telegraph Authority, has the statutory power to determine compensation for laying transmission lines....
The court affirmed the legality of the procedures for erecting transmission towers and highlighted public interest in electricity provision over private landowner objections.
The court upheld the statutory authority to lay electricity lines, prioritizing public interest over individual objections.
The authority for erecting electric poles does not require landowner consent, only compensation for damages is mandated.
The Court mandates reassessment of pole usage and adherence to statutory requirements before Revenue Recovery proceedings can proceed.
The authority of the respondent to shift transmission towers under the Electricity Act and the entitlement of aggrieved parties to compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
