Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

R.Kannappa Raja vs The Secretary on 10 February, 2022

Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

                                                                1

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                      DATED:10.02.2022

                                                            CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                  W.P (MD).No. 276 of 2022
                                                           and
                                                  W.M.P(MD)No.210 of 2022

                R.Kannappa Raja                                                      ...Petitioner

                                                               Vs.

                1.The Secretary,
                  The Ministry for Information and Broadcasting,
                  Government of India,
                  2, Krishna Menon Marg,
                  New Delhi-110 001.

                2.The District Revenue Office/Nodal Officer (Cable TV),
                  Tenkasi District,
                  Tenkasi.

                3.The Inspector of Police,
                  Tenkasi Police Station,
                  Tenkasi District.

                4.Ganesh Damotharan                                                  ...Respondents


                Prayer:           Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
                issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent not to interfere in the
                cable business of the petitioner's firm, based on the complaint of the fourth
                respondent.


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                              2

                                           For Petitioner     : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth


                                           For R2 and R3      : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
                                                                Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                           For R4             : Mrs.Deepa


                                                            ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus, seeking a direction to the third respondent not to interfere in the cable business of the petitioner's firm, based on the complaint of the fourth respondent.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he was granted delearship for transmission of GTPL Digital Signal, for providing Set Top Boxes (STBs) and also for promoting GTPL to the Local Cable Operators (LCOs) at Tenkasi Town. As per the terms and conditions of his dealership with GTPL and Tamara entertainment, the petitioner started laying optic fibers lines and promoting the same LCOs as well as customers directly. The fourth respondent approached the petitioner and threatened him not to provide signal to the customers claiming the area is his area. However, the fourth respondent lodged complaint that the petitioner has disconnected his network, in which, the third respondent registered the case in Crime Nos.594 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 342, 323, 324, 427 and 504(2) of IPC as against the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 petitioner and others. While being so, now the petitioner filed the Writ Petition alleging that the fourth respondent instricated the third respondent to remove his optic fiber lines from the fourth respondent area and also to disconnect the Set Top Boxes (STBs) provided to the customers in the said area.

3.The learned Counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that already the petitioner interfered with the business of the fourth respondent and as if he lodged complaint, the petitioner is facing prosecution on the file of the third respondent. Only to maintain this Writ Petition, the petitioner added the third respondent as if the fourth respondent instricated the third respondent to disconnect the STBs and also to remove optic fibre line. If at all in guiltness over against the fourth respondent, he can file only a suit and the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable.

4.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that except the FIR pending against the petitioner, the third respondent never interfered with the business of the petitioner.

5.It is also made clear that there seems to be a civil dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent and as such, the petitioner cannot use this Writ Petition as to escape from the clutches of law. If at all the petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 has grievance over the fourth respondent, he can very well file a civil suit for appropriate relief as against the fourth respondent in a manner known to law.

6.Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.




                                                                                 10.02.2022



                Internet : Yes
                Index    : Yes/No
                Speaking/Non Speaking order
                lr

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

1.The Secretary, The Ministry for Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, 2, Krishna Menon Marg, New Delhi-110 001.

2.The District Revenue Office/Nodal Officer (Cable TV), Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5

3.The Inspector of Police, Tenkasi Police Station, Tenkasi District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lr W.P (MD).No.276 of 2022 10.02.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis