Madras High Court
M.Soosai Raj vs The Managing Director on 4 January, 2024
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.P(MD)No.3761 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.3761 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.3188, 3189, 3186, 4704, 4685 of 2020
M.Soosai Raj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd.,
34/123, 6th Floor,
Dukar Tower,
Marsal Salai,
Chennai-600 008.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd.,
34/123, 6th Floor,
Dukar Tower,
Marsal Salai,
Chennai-600 008.
3.The Special Tahsildar/Assistant Manager,
Tamil Nadu Cable TV Corporation Ltd.,
Kanyakumari District.
4.S.Abilasha Meche ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to
the impugned allotment order in Se.Mu.No.B1/2019 issued by the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P(MD)No.3761 of 2020
respondent dated 27.01.2020 to the fourth respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth
For Respondents : Mrs.J.R.Annie Abinaya
Additional Standing Counsel for R1 & R2
: Mr.M.Muthugeethayen for R3
: Mr.G.Anto Prince for R4
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
2. The petitioner is a local cable operator (LCO). His area of operation is Kannatuvilai in Kanyakumari District. The petitioner got himself registered as LCO in the year 2000 itself. He got enrolled with the respondent corporation in the year2011. It is not in dispute that the 4th respondent got registered as LCO as well as enrolled herself with the respondent corporation only subsequent in point of time. While so, the corporation made allotment of set top boxes in favour of the fourth respondent overlooking the claims of the petitioner. Challenging the said allotment order, dated 27.01.2020, the present writ petition came to be filed. While admitting the writ petition, an interim https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7 W.P(MD)No.3761 of 2020 order of stay was granted. To vacate the same, the corporation had filed W.M.P. (MD)No.4685 of 2020. Counter affidavit has also been filed.
3. The learned counsel on either side reiterated the contentions set out in their respective pleadings.
4. I carefully considered the same and went through the materials on record. As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the corporation, there can be more than one LCO in a given area. No person can claim monopoly of operation. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the enrollment of the fourth respondent with the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited for Kannatuvilai area. The corporation is not engaged in any charitable activities. They are doing business. Therefore, the corporation is justified in taking the stand that they will go-by commercial considerations. At the same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the corporation is a State instrumentality and therefore, its activities should also be informed by the principles of fairness. The petitioner is justified in contending that since he is senior compared to the fourth respondent, his claims should not be overlooked. To this extent, I endorse the case of the petitioner but not beyond. The petitioner is entitled to that number of set top boxes which an LCO can have, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7 W.P(MD)No.3761 of 2020 matching with the number of active subscriptions. The allotment of set top boxes will precede the subscriptions. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he may be given three months time to align the number of allotments of set top boxes with the number of subscriptions. Let me illustrate this way. If an LCO is allotted 50 set top boxes on 01.01.2024, he should be able to command 50 subscriptions for Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation by 01.04.2024. The petitioner of-course must furnish the particulars of customers / subscribers while seeking the allotment of set top boxes.
5. The learned standing counsel complains that even though 100 set top boxes were given to the petitioner in the year 2017, all of them are inactive as on date. The petitioner's counsel would say that since the corporation had advised that the set top boxes are being given free, the customers, while shifting from the area or relocating, refuse to return the set top boxes. The petitioner's counsel states that since the Government has given them free, they are not obliged to return. I do not know how far the stand of the petitioner is justified. But then, he has to give a proper explanation to the respondent corporation by setting out the details. If the customers refuse to part with the set top boxes, of-course, LCO cannot be blamed. LCO does not have any coercive mechanism. But then, LCO must inform the corporation at the earliest opportunity as to what happened to the set top boxes given to him and it https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7 W.P(MD)No.3761 of 2020 is for the corporation to take appropriate action as per law. I would suggest that the corporation should make it clear through public announcement that the set top boxes are given free only for subscription purposes and that once subscription ceases, they have to be returned to the LCO from whom they were obtained. This is a suggestion for consideration of the respondent corporation.
6. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms:-
(I) The appointment of the fourth respondent by the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited is sustained.
(II) The petitioner has already been provided with 50 set top boxes pursuant to the interim direction given in this writ petition. As on date, only 11 have been activated. The petitioner has to activate the remaining 39 before placing an indent for supply of additional number of set top boxes. The petitioner has to comply with the usual norms stipulated by the Corporation in this regard such as furnishing of the particulars of the proposed subscribers.
(III) As and when the petitioner submits an additional indent, the same will be honoured by the corporation subject to the petitioner activating the corresponding number of subscriptions within three months thereafter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/7 W.P(MD)No.3761 of 2020 (IV) In the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to activate the set top boxes and getting subscriptions within three months, he has to return the set top boxes to the corporation.
(V) Since the petitioner's right have been adequately safeguarded, it is not for the petitioner to restrain the corporation from making appropriate allotments in favour of the fourth respondent.
7. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04.01.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
rmi
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/7
W.P(MD)No.3761 of 2020
rmi
W.P(MD)No.3761 of 2020
04.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/7