JUDGMENT

B.K. NAYAK, J. – In this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 02.05.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri in I.A. No.25 of 2011 (arising out at C.S. NO.93 of 2008) directing opposite party Nos.1 and 2, authorities of Puri Municipality, to issue necessary direction to the present petitioner not to draw cable connection on the electric poles belonging to the Municipality.

2. The present opposite party No.3 has filed Civil Suit No.93 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri for perpetual injunction restraining the present opposite party Nos.1 and 2 (defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in the suit) from entering into any kind of agreement or according any permission to anyone else other than the plaintiff to draw cables on the electric poles belonging to opposite party Nos.1 and 2 in view of Government Notification dated 11.10.2001 and its addendum dated 04.01.2002 and a further mandatory injunction directing opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to remove any cables laid on such poles other than that of the plaintiff. In the suit one Sky Vision Cable Network, Pramod Kumar Bahinipati and Variety Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. were impleaded as defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively and the present petitioner is not a party to the suit. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules-1 and 2, C.P.C. seeking ad-interim ex-parte injunction against the defendants from laying cables on the electric poles belonging to defendant Nos.4 and 5. The said injunction application was registered as I.A. No.68 of 2008. By order dated 15.05.2008, the trial Court while issuing notice to the defendants passed ex-parte ad-interim order of status quo till appearance of the opposite parties in the said misc. case. By order dated 23.05.2008, the order of status quo was made absolute.

3. The suit and the aforesaid misc. case have been filed on the assertions that the plaintiff is a Cable Operator and also runs broadband connection services with cable laid on electric poles belonging to GRIDCO/ CESCO and Puri Municipal Authorities by entering into agreements with them. Though some electric poles on which electric wire has been drawn belong to Puri Municipality, the same are under the control and supervision of CESCO, the distribution company for the Central zone. Therefore, for the purpose of laying cables on the poles belonging to the Municipality, the guidelines issued by the Energy Department of Government of Orissa are also applicable. The guidelines of the Energy Department vide Notification No.18271 dated 11.10.2001, as amended by Notification No.148 dated 04.01.2002, prescribes in Clause-16 thereof that only one number of cable shall run on one pole taking into consideration the height of the pole and leading of conductors. It is further alleged in the plaint that some other Cable Operators were operating in different parts of Puri Town, but after the launching of the network by the plaintiff those operators got tied up with the plaintiff in different forms, that is to say, some operators sold their franchise and business to the plaintiff while some others acted as agents by entering into agency agreement and some remained as franchisee on the basis of franchise agreements. Later the plaintiff detected that in course of time some of the franchisees not only became defaulters in payment of subscription charges to the plaintiff, but also illegally and unauthorisedly expanded their customer base, as a result of which, the plaintiff disconnected them as per terms of the franchise agreement. Some such franchisees have been trying indirectly to launch a similar kind of network/business in the name and style 'Sky Vision Cable Network' (defendant No.1). For the purpose of their business, the defendants are trying to lay cables on the electric poles of Puri Municipality and CESCO in contravention of the Government Notification dated 11.10.2001, which provides for laying only one cable on a