Disposed

D.S.Srinivasan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC29 Sept 2021WP/5186/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a writ to grant an Arasu Cable TV operator license. The petitioner's original application was rejected in 2014. The Court held that an assurance made in 2011 could not be considered after six and a half years. The petitioner was directed to file a fresh application.

What did the court decide?

No costs. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh application to the respondents, which shall be considered on merits.

D.S.Srinivasan, Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 29.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.5186 of 2014 and

¶6

W.M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

¶7

D.S.Srinivasan ...Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶10

The Deputy Manager Special Tahsildar, (Arasu Cable TV), Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram.

¶11

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Government Cable T.V.Network Ltd., Chennai-34. ...Respondents [R3 impleaded vide order of this Court

¶12

[SMSJ] dated 29.09.2021 made in

¶13

M.P.No.3 of 2014 in W.P.No.5186 of 2014]

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for records on the file of the 2nd respondent in connection with the proceedings in Na.Ka.23/2012/TACTV-KPM dated 04.02.2014 and quash the same as unconstitutional and ultravires and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry on cable tv network operation under Arasu Cable TV Network.

¶15

For Petitioner : Ms.K.Janani, for M/s.M.Srividhya For Respondent 1 : Mr.KMD.Muhilan Government Advocate For Respondent 2 : Mr.Abdul Saleem (Vakalat not filed)

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The order dated 04.02.2014 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for providing Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV operator license is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶18

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

¶19

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states

¶20

that the competent authority made an assurance in the year 2011 that the case of the petitioner will be considered. However, such an assurance made in the year 2011 cannot be considered at this length of time by this Court.

¶21

3.The fact remains that the application submitted by the

¶22

petitioner was rejected in proceedings dated 04.02.2014. After a lapse of about six and a half years, this Court cannot issue any direction for grant of license to the petitioner to operate Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV.

¶23

4.This being the factum, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh application to the respondents, in accordance with law and in the event of submitting any fresh application, the same should be considered on merits and in accordance with law.

¶24

5.With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

ars/mka

¶29

¶30

The District Collector,

¶31

Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶32

The Deputy Manager Special Tahsildar, (Arasu Cable TV), Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram.

¶33

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Government Cable T.V.Network Ltd., Chennai-34.

¶34

+1cc to Mr.I.Saddaam Hussain, Advocate, S.R.No.50935

¶35

+1cc to Mr.Abdul Saleem, 2^nd Respondent Advocate, S.R.No.50788 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.51276

¶36

W.P.No.5186 of 2014

¶37

NR(CO) RGA(29/11/2021)

¶38

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

D.S.Srinivasan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.S.Srinivasan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Thenmozhi.v Vs The Sub Registrar

Saroja Vs The Sub Collector

V.Kamaraj Vs The Joint Commissioner

K.Sekar Vs the District Collector

R.Sampath, Vs The District Collector

P.Shanmugam, Vs The Head (Retail), South