The Court held that the petitioner, appointed for one year, cannot claim exclusive rights to operate as a cable TV service provider in the locality, noting the contract period had lapsed, and closed the petition.
Writ Petition closed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.900 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.900 of 2018
and W.M.P.Nos.1081 & 1082 of 2018
S.Karthikeyan . . . Petitioner
Vs.
. . . Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order in Proceeding No.B6/10726/2017 dated 04.12.2017 issued by the 1st Respondent to the 3rd respondent and
1
W.P.No.900 of 2018
quash the same and pursuant to the same take action as per the communication of the 2nd respondent in Letter.No.Na.Ka.167/2017 (TACTV) dated 14.12.2017.
For petitioner : M/s.B.Prasanna Vinoth
For Respondents : No Appearance
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 04.12.2017 which was issued by the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent and for a direction to the 1st respondent to take necessary action as per the communication of the 2nd respondent dated 14.12.2017.
2
W.P.No.900 of 2018
this Writ Petition has been filed.
as a cable TV operator reveals that he was granted the contract only for a period of one year. Such being the case, the petitioner as a matter of right cannot demand that no other person should be appointed as a cable TV operator in the said locality. Even in the impugned order, it clearly shows that service providers could be appointed in the locality for providing the cable TV signal to the public. That being the case, the appointment of the 3rd respondent also as a service provider to receive the signal and transmit the same cannot be said to be impermissible. The petitioner, as a matter or right cannot claim that he alone should be appointed as the service provider in the locality. The petitioner with open eyes has entered into a contract for a period of one year, the petitioner cannot come before this Court and claim that no other person can be appointed in addition to the petitioner. It is within the domain of the official respondents to decide the number of persons to be appointed as service providers.
3
W.P.No.900 of 2018
appointment order was issued in the year 2017. By now, the period of one year has lapsed and therefore, nothing survives for consideration at this point of time for further adjudication.
15.03.2023
NHS
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
4
W.P.No.900 of 2018
To
5
W.P.No.900 of 2018
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
NHS
W.P.No.900 of 2018
15.03.2023
6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can claim exclusive rights to operate as a cable TV service provider after appointing another provider in the same locality.
S.Karthikeyan
The Managing Director, Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd.
The Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Cable TV Corporation Ltd.
A.V.R.Nehru
M.Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
