Disposed

A.Mariappan v. the Managing Director

Madras HC30 Aug 2017WP(MD)/16306/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, following a prior order, directed the petitioner a local cable TV operator to submit relevant records to the Special Tahsildar. The Special Tahsildar was directed to enquire and pass orders on merits within eight weeks, maintaining status quo in the interim. The writ petition was disposed upon forming an opinion that the order should be approached for a fresh direction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the second respondent with records; second respondent to enquire and pass orders within eight weeks; status quo maintained; Writ Petition disposed.

A.Mariappan Vs the Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 30.08.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.16306 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.12978 & 12979 of 2017

¶7

A.Mariappan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs. 1.The Managing Director, Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd., 34/123, 6^th Floor, Dukar Tower, Marsal Salai, Chennai-600 008.

¶9

2.The Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Cable TV Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned demand notice in proceedings No.007461/48584/2017/66 dated 21.06.2017 passed by the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondents : Mr.S.Gunasekaran

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No.007461/48584/2017/66 dated 21.06.2017, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶14

2.The petitioner would claim that the petitioner is a Local cable TV Operator. The petitioner, originally while registering with the respondents, had registered showing 1400 customer points. He would further submit that the second respondent is not providing signals properly and also without conducting any survey, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed the impugned order in violation of TRAI regulations.

¶15

¶16

3.Mr.S.Gunasekaran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would strongly oppose the prayer sought for in the writ petition, contending that the petitioner has not paid rent regularly and still the petitioner has to pay subscription amount of Rs.6,65,000/-.

¶17

4.In similar writ petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.15573 and 17997 of 2015 dated 07.11.2016, this Court has passed the following order: “4.In view of the above submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the petitioners are directed to approach the second respondent/Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited and submit relevant records along with his objection. On receipt of such objections and relevant records, the second respondent/Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited is directed to conduct an enquiry and consider all the materials filed by the petitioners and pass suitable orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the interim order, if any, already granted is extended.”

¶18

5.Following the same, without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the petitioner to approach the second respondent/Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited and submit relevant records. On receipt of such relevant records, the second respondent/Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited shall conduct an enquiry and consider all the materials filed by the petitioner and pass suitable orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the respondents are directed to maintain statusquo as on date.

¶19

6.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(Records)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.The Managing Director,

¶26

Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd., https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 34/123, 6^th Floor, Dukar Tower, Marsal Salai, Chennai-600 008.

¶27

¶28

2.The Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Cable TV Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli District.

¶29

+1cc to M/S.B.Prasanna Vinoth, Advocate SR.No. 75383

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.16306 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.12978 & 12979 of 2017 30.08.2017

¶31

SKN

¶32

JM/SV MMS/SAR 1/13.11.2017/3P/4C

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.Mariappan v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Mariappan v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Fakkrudeen Ali Ahamed, Vs the District Collector

The Commissioner Vs M.Subramaniyan

S.Pandurangan, Vs M.Subramaniyan

B.M. Kumar Vs M. Bagawathi Achari

Chinnammal Vs the District Collector

V.Murugesan Vs the Managing Director