Disposed

S.Nehru, S/O. Subramanian, v. the District Collector

Madras HC19 Jun 2023WP(MD)/6664/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench disposed of a writ petition regarding optical fiber interference by a license discontinuing respondent. Granting liberty for a fresh representation to the Special Tahsildar for initiation of an enquiry without costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit fresh representation; direction to respondent to conduct enquiry and pass orders within 12 weeks.

S.Nehru, S/O. Subramanian, Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.6664 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.06.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.6664 of 2017 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)No.5239 of 2017

S.Nehru

... Petitioner

versus

The District Collector, Karur District, Karur.

¶12

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd.,

¶13

Dugar Towers 6^th Floor, Egmore, Chennai.

¶14

The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur.

¶15

The Manager/Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd.,

¶16

Karur,

¶17

Karur District.

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.6664 of 2017

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

T.V.Malarvannan

¶23

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate action against the 5^th respondent for disconnecting the optic fiber line and removing the joint box of the petitioner and to ensure that the petitioner lays his optic fiber line to his customers and transmit signal without interfering from the fifth respondent illegally based on the petitioner's representation dated 21.03.2017.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For R1 and R3 : Mr.M.Siddhardhan, Additional Govt. Pleader For R2 and R4 : M/s.Annie Abinaya, Standing Counsel For R5 : No appearance

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner, claiming to be an Internet Service Provider, has obtained licence from the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation in the year 2016. The 5^th respondent, who was also recognized as one of the Internet Service Providers, has interfered with his business and taken away his joint box and optic fibber cables to an extent of 2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.6664 of 2017

¶29

Rs.5 lakhs, for which, he has submitted a representation to the respondents on 21.03.2017. Since there was no action on the said representation, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶30

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation submits that the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation has discontinued the services of network with effect from 2018. Therefore, nothing survives in this writ petition.

¶31

The grievance of the petitioner is that he entered into an agreement for providing Internet service for Kulithalai area on 23.12.2016. However, he was prevented by the 5^th respondent and the joint box and other optic cables laid by the petitioner was damaged.

¶32

This Court, by order dated 12.04.2017, ordered notice to the 5^th respondent. But, the petitioner has failed to take notice to the 5^th respondent.

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.6664 of 2017

¶36

Considering that the writ petition is pending from the year 2017 and the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation has also discontinued the Internet service from the year 2018, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the 4^th respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing any such representation, the 4^th respondent shall conduct an enquiry and pass orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

19.06.2023

¶38

ogy NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No. To

¶39

The District Collector, Karur District, Karur.

¶40

4/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.6664 of 2017

¶43

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd.,

¶44

Dugar Towers 6^th Floor, Egmore, Chennai.

¶45

The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur.

¶46

The Manager/Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd.,

¶47

Karur.

¶48

5/6

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.(MD)No.6664 of 2017

¶51

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶52

ogy

¶53

W.P.(MD)No.6664 of 2017

¶54

19.06.2023

¶55

6/6

¶56

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

S.Nehru, S/O. Subramanian, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Nehru, S/O. Subramanian, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Muthukumar Vs K.Kumar Singh

Nachimuthu.a.N Vs The Inspector of General Registration

P. Selvaraj Vs the Government of

V.K.Balasubramanian Vs the Secretary

Kannan, Vs the Managing Director

P.Ramachandran Vs the Managing Director