Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1556
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Abdul Quddhose, J.
B. Venkatesh – Petitioner
Versus
The District Revenue Officer/Nodal Officer (Cable), Trichy District & Others – Respondents
W.P. (MD). No. 15111 of 2020 & W.M.P. (MD). No. 12722 of 2020
Decided On : 02-11-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:B. Prasanna Vinoth, Advocate.
For the Respondent: A. Muthukaruppan, Additional Government Pleader, T. Madasamy for Proposed impleaded person (Petition not filed).
The importance of considering representations and providing fair opportunities to all parties before passing final orders.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Cable TV Business - Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - License, Senior Post Master, Tiruchirappalli (G) HO, 620 001, Form – 3 - Illegal Interference - Optic Fiber Line - Fundamental Rights - Representation dated 14.10.2020
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Cable TV Operator, sought a mandamus to direct action against respondents restraining him from operating his Cable TV business, based on his representation. He alleged illegal interference and violation of fundamental rights.
Finding of the Court:
The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass final orders within eight weeks, restraining the respondents from disturbing the petitioner's Cable TV business until then.
Issues: Illegal interference with Cable TV business, violation of fundamental rights, failure to consider petitioner's representation
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need to consider the petitioner's representation and provide a fair opportunity to all parties before passing final orders.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass final orders within eight weeks, while restraining them from disturbing the petitioner's Cable TV business until then.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to take action against the 3rd and 5th respondents for illegally restraining the petitioner from doing his Cable business and also restrained them from disturbing the petitioner's Cable business, based on the petitioner's representation dated 14.10.2020.)
(This writ petition is heard through video conference)
1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus seeking for a direction to the first and second respondents to take action against the third and 5th respondents for illegally restraining the petitioner from doing his Cable business, based on the petitioner's representation dated 14.10.2020.
2. Heard Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.T.Madasamy, learned counsel, who seeks permission to file an impleading petition to implead a proposed party to this writ petition, but the same was denied by this Court.
3. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Cable TV Operator and providing digital signals and STBs (Set Top Boxes) to his customers. It is the case of the petitioner that he has obtained license from the Senior Post Master, Tiruchirappalli (G) HO, 620 001, under Form – 3, to run the Cable Television Net Work at Velayuthankudi and Kumbakudi, Trichy, dated 21.01.2020, from 20.01.2020 to 19.01.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent is preventing him from operating Cable TV in the aforementioned area, as according to them, it is only the 6th respondent who is permitted to provide digital signals and STBs in that area. According to the petitioner, the third respondent does not have any jurisdiction or legal right to restrict the petitioner from operating Cable TV in the areas of Velayuthankudi and Kumbakudi.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the third and 6th respondents have disconnected his optic fiber line illegally. It is also the case of the petitioner that the 5th respondent called him and his father to the police station on 09.10.2020 and threatened them that they should not provide signals in the above mentioned areas, as the same belongs to the 6th respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent is one amongst the Multi system operators and they cannot monopolize the Cable business. According to him, the third respondent does not have any jurisdiction over Cable Business. It is also the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent had already directed the 3rd and 6th respondents to approach the Civil Court, as he cannot intervene in the dispute between the petitioner and the 6th respondent.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the action of 5th respondent in interfering with the Cable TV operation by the petitioner is illegal. According to him, it amounts to violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has given a representation on 14.10.2020 to the respondents 1 and 2 for taking action against the respondents 3, 5 and 6 for the unlawful interference with the petitioner's Cable TV business in the areas allotted to him under the licence. According to the petitioner, till date, the said representation has not been considered by the respondents 1 and 2. In such circumstances, this writ petition has been filed.
7. The postal licence dated 21.01.2020 has been issued to the petitioner for running a Cable TV net work at Velayuthankudi and Kumbakudi for the period from 20.01.2020 to 19.01.2021. The case of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent is illegally interfering with the petitioner's business of running a Cable TV net work at the aforementioned areas. It is also the case of the
