Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The petitioner herein is a consumer and he applied for the supply of set-top box to the third respondent through the fourth respondent and since the fourth respondent is a Local Cable Operator (L.C.O.), he has to provide the set-top box. Since he has refused to provide the same, the petitioner has approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer.

http://www.judis.nic.in

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, despite the petitioner has approached the fourth respondent and also ready to pay the charges payable to towards the set-top box, he had refused to give the set-top box for having the connection of Arasu Cable TV Corporation and the reason for such refusal, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the fourth respondent insisted the petitioner to subscribe for some other cable TV network (i.e.) SCV. Such a demand by the fourth respondent is unlawful. Therefore, the Mandamus as such sought for has to be granted.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for first and third respondents, who would submit that since the fourth respondent is a L.C.O. already being appointed and if at all any consumer wants the set-top box, they should approach only the L.C.O. and once the L.C.O. is approached by the consumer and makes payment for getting set -top box of Arasu Cable TV Corporation or any other cable network, it is for the fourth respondent to provide the same according to the choice of the consumer.

8. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction:

“that the third respondent is hereby directed to ensure that the fourth respondent provides the petitioner with the set-top box as requested by the petitioner, http://www.judis.nic.in against the payment fixed in this regard and in this context, if the fourth respondent is not cooperating with the third respondent, the third respondent can directly issue the set-top box to the petitioner and collect the charges directly from the petitioner and also, it is open to the third respondent to take any disciplinary action against the fourth respondent, in case of non-compliance of the instruction to that effect to be given by the third respondent pursuant to the order of this Court.”