The Court mandates reassessment of pole usage and adherence to statutory requirements before Revenue Recovery proceedings can proceed.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner operates a cable TV network in and around Shornur and Ottappalam areas. The issue in WP(C) No.19242 of 2017 concerns a demand raised by the 3rd respondent regarding the unauthorized use of electric poles for stringing cables. Following a failure to remit the demanded amount, Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated, which are now under challenge in both writ petitions.

2. In this regard, the petitioner entered into agreements with the 3rd respondent, as evidenced by Exhibits P1 to P3. Based on these agreements, the 3rd respondent sanctioned the use of 238 electric poles. The petitioner admits to utilizing an additional 144 poles and has submitted a representation regarding this matter. However, the 3rd respondent—allegedly ignoring the Assistant Engineer’s report—determined that the petitioner had used 347 poles between the years 2011-12 and 2016-17.

3. Accordingly, a sum of ₹6,71,185/- was assessed via Ext.P4.

Aggrieved by this, the petitioner submitted a representation and challenged the order before this Court. Following the dismissal of that challenge, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was disposed of via the judgment in Ext.P6. In that judgment, the Court directed the 3rd respondent to determine the exact number of unauthorized poles for which rental charges were due. This assessment was to be conducted by the respondent or an authorized officer, with due notice to the appellant. Based on the findings, the respondents were permitted to raise a demand, which the appellant was to satisfy within a stipulated timeframe. Consequently, an inspection was conducted, which revealed that the petitioner had erected new poles for cable TV routing without maintaining the statutory clearance from electric lines. While the respondent directed the petitioner to clear the resulting arrears, the petitioner has raised an objection to these findings.

4. Subsequently, a further inspection conducted in the presence of the petitioner’s representative revealed that 538 electric poles under the Shornur Section were being utilized for routing cables. It was also found that the petitioner had erected independent iron poles without maintaining the required statutory clearance from the electric lines. The petitioner thereafter remitted ₹75,000/- as an ad-hoc payment under protest toward the pole rentals. Under Ext.P14, it was clarified that of the 538 poles utilized, 304 were unauthorized (excluding the 234 sanctioned posts). The petitioner was directed to submit further clarifications, if any, before 10.04.2017, however, no response was received. Consequently, after credit was given for previous payments totalling ₹97,798/-, the petitioner was directed to remit the remaining balance of ₹3,33,141/- by 31.05.2017 to avoid Revenue Recovery (RR)

proceedings.

5. The petitioner was further informed that information obtained under the Right to Information Act revealed absence of permission from the Shornur Municipality and a failure to maintain requisite statutory clearances. Despite being cautioned that they would be held liable for any accidents arising from these violations, the petitioner did not respond. This led to the demand raised via the invoice dated 08.05.2017, which is challenged herein. Following the failure to remit the said amount, RR proceedings were initiated, which are currently under challenge in WP(C) No. 25165 of 2017.

6. The petitioner’s primary contention is that he utilized only

382 electric poles in total. Of these, 238 are