Disposed

V.N.Senthil v. the Managing Director

Madras HC20 Dec 2023WP(MD)/387/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a local cable TV operator alleging illegal interference by a fourth respondent. Finding that both parties hold licenses and the corporation nominates multiple operators for populated areas, the court closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; directions to the corporation to ensure a fair procedure in identifying operators and allotting connections.

V.N.Senthil Vs the Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP(MD)No.387 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.12.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.387 of 2018

V.N.Senthil

.. Petitioner

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation, Thugar Towers, 34 (123), 6^th Floor, Marshal Road, Elumbur, Chennai – 600 008.

¶11

2.The District Collector / Authorized Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶12

3.The Deputy Manager / Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation, Ellis Nagar, Madurai – 625 016.

¶13

4.C.R.M.Sureshramkumar .. Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶15

seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/4

¶18

WP(MD)No.387 of 2018

¶19

take action against the fourth respondent for unlawfully interfering with the business of the petitioner as a Local Cable Operator in Meenambigai Nagar and Kovalan Nagar in Ward No.92, Corporation of Madurai, based on the petitioner's representation dated 03.01.2018.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan

¶21

For Respondents : Ms.J.R.Annie Abinaya, Standing Counsel for R.1, R.3

¶22

Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, Government Advocate for R.2

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner, a Local Cable TV Operator of Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation, has filed this writ petition for a mandamus to take action as against the fourth respondent that he is interfering with his business as a Local Cable Operator in Meenambigai Nagar and Kovalan Nagar in Ward No.92, Corporation of Madurai.

¶26

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is having a Registration Certificate and he has been permitted to operate the

¶27

2/4

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

WP(MD)No.387 of 2018

¶30

local cable TV network. Despite the same, the official respondents are encouraging the fourth respondent for the illegal business.

¶31

3.Learned Standing Counsel for the Arasu Cable TV Corporation submitted that both the petitioner and the fourth respondent were issued with license as Local Cable Operators of the Arasu Cable TV. Since the area of operation of the petitioner is a thickly populated urban area, there are

¶32

3-4 operators in this area alone. By referring the affidavit filed by the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel submitted that apart from this petitioner, yet another operator is also doing business in that area.

¶33

4.Since it is reported by the Arasu Cable TV Corporation that both the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent are having licenses and that the Arasu Cable TV is nominating more than one operator for thickly populated areas, this writ petition is closed as no further order is required. However, the Arasu Cable TV Corporation, being a Government Corporation, shall ensure that a fair procedure is adopted in identifying the operators and allotting the connections.

¶34

3/4

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.387 of 2018

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes gk To The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶41

20.12.2023

¶42

WP(MD)No.387 of 2018

¶43

4/4

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

V.N.Senthil v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.N.Senthil 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karuppasamy .M Vs The Commissioner

L.Kanagavalli Vs the District Collector

Radhakririshnan.a Vs The Chief Secretary to Government

Mahadanapuram Grama Vs the Collector

S.Murugan, S/O.Surulivel Vs the Managing Director

S. Krishnan (Died), 1. Chandran, Vs Issac (Died), Thangamani alias Thavamani (Died), Krishnan (Died), 1. Chinnakutti