Madras High Court
Thirumalai vs P.Kannan ... 1St on 2 June, 2021
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
W.A.(MD)No.1054 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1054 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.4738 of 2021
Thirumalai ... Appellant / 4th Respondent
Vs.
1.P.Kannan ... 1st Respondent / Petitioner
2.The Managing Director
Tamilnadu Arasu Cable TV
Corporation Limited,
“Dugar Towers”, 6th Floor,
Old No.34, New No.123,
Marashalls Road,
Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
3.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Special Tahsildar,
Tamilnadu Arasu Cable TV
Corporation, Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District ... Respondent 2 to 4 / Respondents 1 to 3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.1054 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 08.08.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.17031 of 2019 and
allow this Writ Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Mohankumar
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Muthumalai Raja
For 3rd Respondent : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Standing Counsel for Government
For Respondents 2 & 4 : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
************ [Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] We have heard Mr.G.Mohankumar, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Muthumalai Raja, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent / writ petitioner and Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for Government appearing for the third respondent.
2.With the consent on either side, the writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/6 W.A.(MD)No.1054 of 2021
3.This appeal is directed against the order, passed in W.P.(MD)No.17031 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019.
4.The first respondent herein is the writ petitioner, who prayed for a direction upon the respondents 2 to 4, to issue 4 TACTV set-top boxes by considering his representation, dated 12.07.2019.
5.The allegations made by the first respondent / writ petitioner was that the appellant, who was the fourth respondent in the writ petition was an authorised Operator of Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation and he has to issue set-top boxes, upon payment of the requisite charges. But the appellant was insisting that the first respondent / writ petitioner should subscribe some other cable TV network namely, SCV. The fourth respondent herein, namely, the Special Thasildhar, Tamilnadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation had stated before the learned Writ Court that the appellant is an authorised Operator of Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation and therefore, the learned Writ Court had issued a direction to the appellant to issue the set-top boxes.
6.The factual position, which emerges before us is that though initially the appellant was an Operator of the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/6 W.A.(MD)No.1054 of 2021 Corporation, it appears that when he applied for digital signal, which was not considered and given to him and therefore, he has switched over to another cable TV network namely, SCV and he is no longer an Operator of the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation. If such is the position as on date, then the appellant cannot be compelled to give four TACTV set-top boxes to the first respondent / writ petitioner. However, the respondents 2 and 4 can make alternate arrangements to issue such set-top boxes, through the authorised cable TV operator, who is operating under the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation, in the locality.
7.Accordingly, the writ appeal is partly allowed and the order and direction issued in the writ petition is modified as follows:-
1.The first respondent / writ petitioner is directed to apply for issuance of 4 TACTV set-top boxes to the fourth respondent and upon remittance of the requisite fee, the fourth respondent shall direct issuance of four set-top boxes through the authorised Operator of the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation, in the locality, where the petitioner's property is situated.
2.This direction shall be complied with by the fourth https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/6 W.A.(MD)No.1054 of 2021 respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date, on which, the application is made by the first respondent / writ petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
02.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
RM/rmi
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To The District Collector, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/6 W.A.(MD)No.1054 of 2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND S.ANANTHI, J.
RM/rmi JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD)No.1054 of 2021 02.06.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/6