Writ Petition filed by a Local Cable TV Operator seeking injunction against local authorities to forbear action, claiming a valid DAS License. Court dismissed petition, ruling petitioner must approach competent authority for grievances on signal provision and license cancellation matters.
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.
WP(MD)No.1764 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.1764 of 2018
M.Gopal
.. Petitioner
v.
1.The Secretary, TRAI, Mahanagar Door Shanchar Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehur Marg, Old Minto Road, Near Dr.Zakir Husain College, New Delhi-110 002.
2.The Secretary, The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, No.116, A Wing, Shasthri Bawan, New Delhi-110001.
3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Dugar Towers, 6th Floor, 123, Marshal Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
4.The Deputy Manager/The Special Thasildhar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV,
1/10
WP(MD)No.1764 of 2018
Vandikara Street, Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District-623 501.
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 3 to 7 through the respondent Nos.1 and 2 from taking any action of any kind against the petitioner who is having valid DAS License (Digital Addressable System) issued by the second respondent on 13.07.2015 to the petitioner as per the terms of the Regulations of the first respondent and in accordance with Cable Television Networks (Regulations) Act, 1995, by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 10.12.2017.
2/10
For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan For Respondents : Mr.N.S.Ponniah for R1 Ms.Annil Abinaya, Standing Counsel for R3 Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan, Government Advocate for R4, R7 and R9 Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate for R8 and R10 Mr.M.Thirunavukarasu for R11
WP(MD)No.1764 of 2018
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 3 to 7 from taking action against the petitioner who is having valid Digital Addressable System License issued by the second respondent on 13.07.2015, as per the Regulations issued by the first respondent and the Cable Television Networks (Regulations) Act, 1995, by considering his representation dated 10.12.2017.
WP(MD)No.1764 of 2018
Pursuant to the Regulations issued by the first respondent, the petitioner has obtained the Digital Addressable System License from the second respondent. While so, the respondents 3 to 8, who have no locus standi , are threatening the Cable TV Operators not to function under the valid Digital Addressable System License. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
WP(MD)No.1764 of 2018
Local Cable Operator in Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation and later, was appointed as Taluk Cable Operator for Kamudhi, Kadalaad, Mudhukulathuri Area, Paramakudi Taluk and Ramanathapuram District. Pursuant to his appointment as Taluk Cable Operator, he indulged in unlawful activities of transmitting signal from DTH connections and mixing other cable signals with Arasu Cable TV signals. He has set up a digital control room and transmitted digital signal of private players to other persons. Therefore, his appointment was cancelled vide proceedings, dated 26.05.2017. Challenging the same, he has filed a writ petition in W.P(MD).No.10616 of 2017 before this Court and this Court, vide order, dated 30.10.2017, set aside the order passed by TACTV cancelling the appointment of the petitioner and remitted the matter back to TACTV for passing orders afresh. He has also filed another writ petition in W.P(MD).No.23734 of 2017 to consider his representation dated 03.10.2017 which was made for providing digital signals. This Court, vide order dated 21.12.2017, disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation, dated 10.12.2017. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, enquiry was conducted and the petitioner participated in the enquiry. Considering the statements made by the petitioner, TCO license granted to the petitioner was cancelled by TACTV vide proceedings, dated 19.01.2018 and it was found that the petitioner has misrepresented before
5/10
WP(MD)No.1764 of 2018
this Court and obtained the order to consider his representation, dated 10.12.2017 and therefore, the said representation was rejected by TACTV vide proceedings, dated 16.05.2018. However, she fairly submits that TACTV will not interfere in the business of another DAS license holder and if the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the actions of TACTV, he has to approach the TDSAT, New Delhi, for redressal of his grievances, instead, he has approached this Writ Petition.
WP(MD)No.1764 of 2018
representation, dated 10.12.2017 given by the petitioner, he has made a request for providing Digital Signal and the relief sought for in the present writ petition is to forbear the respondents from taking action against him by considering the representation dated 10.12.2017. The request made by the petitioner in the representation and the relief sought for in the present writ petition are totally different. Concealing the same, he is trying to get the order positively from this Court. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation fairly submits that they will not interfere in the business of DAS license holder. Since the petitioner claims that he is having valid Digital Addressable System License, he cannot compel the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation to provide digital signals to him. If the petitioner is having any grievance against the action of the respondents, he has to approach the Competent Authority for redressal of his grievance. Instead of approaching the Competent Authority, he has filed this Writ Petition for a direction to forbear the respondents from taking action against him. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.
7/10
WP(MD)No.1764 of 2018
costs.
Index : Yes / No 15.11.2023 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes ssb
To 1.The Secretary, TRAI, Mahanagar Door Shanchar Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehur Marg, Old Minto Road, Near Dr.Zakir Husain College, New Delhi-110 002.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, No.116, A Wing, Shasthri Bawan, New Delhi-110001.
3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Dugar Towers, 6th Floor, 123, Marshal Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
WP(MD)No.1764 of 2018
Ramanathapuram District-623 501.
9/10
WP(MD)No.1764 of 2018
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ssb
WP(MD)No.1764 of 2018
15.11.2023
10/10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a valid DAS License holder can compel the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation to provide digital signals.
Whether the petitioner should approach the TDSAT instead of the High Court for grievances regarding cancellation of TCO license.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M. Gopal
The Secretary, TRAI
The Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited
Jeyabarath
The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram
B. Pugalendi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
