Madras High Court
M/S.Cable Operators Guild Of Madurai vs The Managing Director on 5 March, 2013
Author: K.K.Sasidharan
Bench: K.K.Sasidharan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05/03/2013
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
Writ Petition (MD)No.2932 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2013
M/s.Cable Operators Guild of Madurai,
(Regn.No.164/2011), rep.by its
President A.Pandi,
No.48, Melaponagaram 12th Street,
YMC Compound, Madurai-625 016. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV
Corporation Ltd. (TNACTCL),
11/22, Mangadu Samy Koil Street,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.
2.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Collectorate, Madurai-625 020. ... Respondents
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to
the Notification of the 1st respondent in Se.Ma.Tho.e/175/Varaikalai/203, dated
20.02.2013 and quashing the same.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.P.Natarajan
^For Respondents... Mr.K.Chellapandian,
Addl.Advocate General,
assisted by
Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian,
Spl.Govt.Pleader.
:ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the Notification, dated 20.02.2013, issued by of the 1st respondent, whereby and whereunder the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited streamlined the mode of collection of subscription from the subscribers of Cable TV, in public interest.
Brief Facts:
2.The petitioner is stated to be the Association of Cable TV Operators. The members of the petitioner Association are local Cable TV Operators, registered under Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited. The first respondent has issued a Notification, bearing No.Se.Ma.Tho.3/847/Varaikalai/ 2011, dated 28.09.2011, indicating that the local Cable TV Operators would be permitted to collect the monthly subscription at the rate of Rs.70/- per subscriber and a sum of Rs.20/- has to be remitted to the Corporation. The Local Cable TV Operators were permitted to retain a sum of Rs.50/- per consumer, per month, to meet their expenditure for providing infrastructure facilities and incidental expenses. The members of the petitioner Association have been collecting subscription on the basis of the Notification, dated 28.09.2011.
3.While the matters stood thus, the 1st respondent issued the impugned Notification, dated 20.02.2013, permitting the subscribers to pay the monthly subscription amount through On-Line or through the authorised agents.
The Cable TV Operators were also permitted to collect the amount, in addition to the other two modes indicated in the said Notification. Feeling aggrieved by the alternative method of collection of subscription, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
4.The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. According to the 1st respondent, the Government have received several complaints from the subscribers alleging that the local Cable TV Operators have been collecting exorbitant amount, notwithstanding the ceiling fixed by the Government. The Government wanted the Local Cable TV Operators to collect only the prescribed amount and it was only for the said purpose, the impugned Notification was issued. The first respondent has further stated that records of such payment would be maintained by the Corporation and the amount payable to the Local Cable TV Operators, at the rate of Rs.50/- per subscriber, per month, would be remitted in the account of the respective Operators on the 10th day of every month. The relevant paragraph of the counter affidavit reads thus:
"As per the notification dated 20.02.2013, The Tamil Nadu Cable TV Corporation has worked out operational methods on implementation of the direct payment by the subscriber.
a.Online payment method through www.arasucable.com b.Authorized agencies (through Scheduled/Naionalsed Banks) approved by the TACTV Corpn.
a.Online Payment method The individual subscribers who are willing to pay through online shall enter the website www.arasucable.com The subscriber should know either their area LCO number or the name of the cable operator/company.
The subscriber is given additional facility to identify their operator by entering their area pincode.
The subscriber should enter their address and phone number details in the fields provided.
the subscriber if has entered all the required dates in the given fields, then he/she can make payments through the debit cards/credit cards/Net Banking.
The subscriber can generate the payment receipts and retain them for any further reference and also show to LCOs.
The subscriber can also receive the payment e-receipt through e-mail provided the subscriber enters his/her valid e/mail id.
The amount received from the subscriber will be reconciled by the Bank and will be sent to TACTC Corporation.
The TACTV Corpn. will remit the Cable operator's share of Rs.50/- in the Cable Operators Bank account on 10th every month.
The Bank account of the Cable Operators has been already provided to The TACTV. If there is a change in teh Bank Account, the Cable Operator can also mention their Bank account details in their login page of the TACTV webside.
The Cable Operator can view their individual subscriber payment details any time just by login to the TACTV website. Thereby the Cable Operator can ascertain their defaulters at any time easily."
5.The first respondent very specifically stated that the Corporation has not appointed private persons for collecting amount and only three banks, namely Indian Bank, Indian Overseas Bank and Karur Vysya Bank, were authorised to accept payments on behalf of the Corporation.
SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS:
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the members of the petitioner Association have been collecting the amount from the subscribers, directly and they have been accounting the entire collection and the Cable TV Operators use to pay the amount due to the 1st respondent every month. According to the learned counsel, in case the subscribers are permitted to pay the amount through On-Line or through banks, Cable TV Operators would not be in a position to ascertain the details of the payments and they would be denied of their share of the subscription amount. The learned counsel further contended that Cable TV Operators have provided infrastructure facilities and as such it was not open to the Corporation to entrust collection of subscription charges with the banks or to collect it through On-Line.
7.The learned Additional Advocate General, on the basis of the statements given by the first respondent in the counter affidavit, submitted that the Corporation will be maintaining true and correct accounts of the transaction and on the 10th of every month the amount payable to the Cable TV Operators would be credited in their respective accounts. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the Bank account numbers of Cable TV Operators are available with the Corporation and as such there would not be any difficulty for the concerned Operators to collect their share of subscription on the basis of the accounts maintained by the Corporation with regard to the subscription paid by the subscribers.
DISCUSSION:
8.There is no dispute that the first respondent earlier issued a Notification, dated 28.09.2011, indicating the manner of collection of subscription amount. As per the said Notification, the local Cable TV Operators were permitted to collect subscription charges at the rate of Rs.70/- per month and out of the said amount they were permitted to retain a sum of Rs.50/-, and the remaining amount of Rs.20/- has to be remitted to the account of the first respondent. The said system worked for few months. The Government received complaints from the consumers that the local Cable TV Operators have been charging exorbitant amount and at times, they have been collecting even at the rate of Rs.150/- per month, from rural people. This made the Government to reconsider the matter in the larger interest of the consumers and to come out with a new procedure for collection of subscription, in modification of the earlier Notification, dated 28.09.2011.
9.The impugned Notification contains three different modes for payment of subscription amount. The subscribers are at liberty to pay the amount through On-Line. It is also open to them to pay the amount through three banks, namely Indian Bank, Indian Overseas Bank and Karur Vysya Bank. The Local Cable TV Operators are also permitted to collect the subscription amount, directly from the subscribers. The cable TV Operators are aggrieved by the decision permitting payment either through On-Line or through Banks. Their grievance is that the Operators would be denied of their due share out of the amount collected by the Corporation. The counter affidavit filed by the first respondent contains the details as to how the amount collected would be apportioned. Out of the subscription amount collected every month, the amount payable to the Cable TV Operators would be credited at the rate of Rs.50/- in the bank accounts of the concerned cable TV Operators on the 10th day of every month.
10.There is no difficulty for ascertaining the amount collected by the Corporation through On-Line. Similarly, there is no difficulty to collect the details of payment made through Banks also. The authority who has issued the earlier Notification, equally, has the authority to revise the Notification. The petitioner cannot be heard to say that the Notification issued earlier should continue for years together. It is only the practical problems faced by the Government on account of the exorbitant demand made by the local Cable TV Operators compelled the Government to look into the matter. The Government, having found that the Cable TV Operators have been collecting exorbitant amount indiscriminately from the consumers, thought it fit to introduce a new mode of collection and resultantly, the impugned Notification was issued. The Cable TV Operators were assured of their share even under the revised guidelines.
11.The Cable TV Operators have been collecting the subscription and remitting the amount payable to the Corporation from 28.09.2011. Now, the Corporation wanted to collect it with an assurance that the amount due to the operators would be deposited in their respective bank accounts. The Operators should be given their due share. The Corporation is prepared to show the accounts and remit the amount in their accounts. I am at a loss to understand as to how the revised procedure would cause prejudice to the interest of local Cable TV Operators.
12.The Government have taken a policy decision to provide cable TV Services to the people at an affordable cost. The collection of exorbitant amount, over and above the prescribed subscription, would frustrate the very policy. The private interest should give way to public interest in such cases. The collection of subscription amount is not a vested right. The local Cable TV Operators can only demand their due share out of the subscription amount. The court cannot draw an inference that the Corporation would not maintain true and correct accounts of the transaction.
DISPOSITION:
13.On a careful consideration of the impugned Notification in the light of the explanation given by the 1st respondent, I am of the view that the interests of the Cable TV Operators were fully safeguarded by the Government.
14.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 are also dismissed and M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2013 is closed.
gb To The District Collector, Madurai District, Collectorate, Madurai-625 020.