Madras High Court
P.Senthilnathan vs The Secretary on 14 June, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.06.2012 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.14684 of 2012, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 P.Senthilnathan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Deputy Secretary, Legislative Assembly, Residential Quarters, Mount Road, Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to letter ref. No. 800/2019-25 Sa.Ma.Pe.Se.(Vi.Ni.2) dated 4.6.2012 of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to grant licence in favour of the petitioner to run the Cable TV Network under the name and style of Moon Star Cable TV Network at "B" Block, Ground Floor Legislative Assembly Members Residential Quarters, Chennai 2. For Petitioner : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan,Senior Counsel for Ms.AL.Ganthimathi For Respondents : Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, Advocate General Assisted by Mr.E.Sampath Kumar Special Government Pleader O R D E R
The petitioner is having Cable TV Network and called in the name and style of Moon Star Cable. The petitioner is also servicing the quarters in which the members of the Legislative Assembly are situated within the Omanthurar Government Estate at Chennai-2.
2. The petitioner was given a permission letter dated 20.08.2001 by the Deputy Speaker on behalf of the Principal Secretary of the Assembly Secretariat asking him to provide the cable TV connection to the MLA quarters on an Experimental Basis that too under the orders of the then Hon'ble Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. By a further letter dated 22.10.2001 certain conditions were imposed on the petitioner for grant of cable connection. It was stipulated that he should not give room to any complaints from the Hon'ble Members of the Legislative Assembly and if any complaint comes that telecast is not having clarity, then the license given to him is liable for cancellation without notice. When his term came to an end, without calling for any tender, by a letter dated 12.11.2002, he was given one year extension from the last date of expiry. Subsequently, once again on 11.11.2003, he was given further extension of one year. Likewise, on 30.09.2004 and 04.10.2005, he was given extension continuously on a year to year basis. Subsequently, on 18.10.2006, the petitioner sent a letter seeking for extension of his Cable Service to the MLA quarters. That letter was considered by the Secretary to the Legislative Assembly and by a letter dated 30.10.2008, he was given extension of one more year from 22.10.2006 with the conditions stipulated earlier. Once again on 24.10.2007, 14.10.2008 and 14.10.2010, he was granted extension.
3. Subsequently, by a communication dated 18.08.2011, he was informed that Hon'ble Members of the Legislative Assembly were given advance of Rs.500/- for getting cable connection and if any member is not requiring the connection, the petitioner was directed to refund the advance amount received and he was given further permission to grant Cable Service till 20.10.2011. When the period was about to end, the petitioner sent a letter dated 13.10.2011, seeking for further extension of his service and once again on 29.05.2012, he sought for continuing his Cable Service. When the same was not forthcoming, the petitioner came to challenge the order dated 04.06.2012, wherein and by which, the permission granted to him to grant Cable TV Network connection was cancelled. He was also directed to vacate the room given to him for having his equipments. Challenging the cancellation of the permission granted, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to set aside the order and for a direction to grant license in favour of his Cable TV Network in the MLA quarters.
4. When the matter came up on 11.06.2012, this Court ordered notice on admission. Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Advocate General sought time to get instructions from the respondents.
5. Heard the arguments of Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.E.Sampath Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
6. When questioned as to how the petitioner can maintain a writ petition, that too for a direction to grant extension of license, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that though the petitioner may not have any right to get extension but in future if the respondents want to grant any Cable TV Network connection to the MLA Quarters, they should call for tenders. He placed strong reliance on Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 (for short Act). It must be seen that the said Act will apply only to the establishments which are set out in the Schedule to the Act in terms of Section 2(e) of the Act. Under Section 2(e) of the Act, 'procuring entity' means the entity which are specified in the Schedule and the Schedule only lists out 7 establishments and nowhere, it lists the Assembly Secretariat as one of the 'procuring entity' covered by the provisions of the Act.
7. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept that for all the time the respondents should only go for inviting tenders from the intending bidders and then decide the issue.
8. Thereafter, the learned Senior Counsel stated that since it involves grant of largess, Article 14 is attracted. Therefore, in the interest of transparency and avoiding arbitrariness, the Secretary of the Legislative Assembly should be directed to call for tenders for future Cable TV Network connection in MLA quarters. As noted above, as many as on 10 occasions, the petitioner never got the extension by any tender for getting the Cable TV Network connection. Hence, it is not open to him to state that in future, they should call for tender. In any event, in the matter of offering facility for the MLA quarters and the duty of providing such facilities vest with the Legislative Assembly's Secretariat and it is for the Hon'ble Speaker and the Secretary to decide as to which method by which such facilities can be extended. It does not lie in the mouth of a third party like the petitioner to state that either he should be granted the license directly without going for tender or in the absence of it only by inviting tenders.
9. This Court do not think that the petitioner has made out any case for entertaining the writ petition in the absence of any legal or enforceable right. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
svki TO
1.The Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Deputy Secretary, Legislative Assembly, Residential Quarters, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002