Dismissed

T.Murugan, S/O.Thangaiah Nadar v. the Managing Director

Madras HC19 Feb 2024WP(MD)/1432/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A local cable operator challenged the Corporation's order rejecting his request to waive subscription arrears after disconnection. The Court noted the demand notice had already been challenged in earlier writ petitions and that the waiver request was rejected for non-payment since March 2012, and declined to entertain the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

T.Murugan, S/O.Thangaiah Nadar Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD)No.1432 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.12.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.1432 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.1491 of 2018

T.Murugan

... Petitioner

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation, Chennai – 600 005.

¶11

2.The Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Network, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in ROC.No.111/2017 dated 30.10.2017 and quash the same and consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.02.2017.

¶13

For petitioner : Mr.SR.Anbarasu For Respondents : Mrs.Annie Abinaya

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

WP(MD)No.1432 of 2018

¶18

The petitioner is a Local Cable TV Operator of

¶19

Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation from the year 2003. While so during the year 2012 his LCO connection was disconnected and therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 02.08.2012 to restore the cable connection and also filed a writ petition in WP(MD)No.1318

¶20

of 2023 before this Court and the same was dismissed with

¶21

liberty to the petitioner to approach the 2^nd respondent. In the meantime the 2^nd respondent has issued a demand

¶22

notice calling upon this petitioner to pay the arrears of subscription amount of Rs.1,67,000/- by the demand notice

¶23

dated 20.04.2016. The petitioner has challenged the demand notice in WP(MD)No.5698 of 2017 before this court. When the

¶24

writ petition was taken up for hearing, a representation

¶25

was made on behalf of the petitioner that he had submitted

¶26

a representation before the 2^nd respondent and it would be suffice if the representation was directed to be considered

¶27

by the respondents. However the representation of the petitioner for waiving the arrears of subscription amount

¶28

2/6

¶29

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

¶30

WP(MD)No.1432 of 2018

¶31

was rejected. Challenging the same the present writ petition is filed.

¶32

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Corporation without providing any cable connection has demanded a sum of Rs.1,67,000/-. The 2^nd respondent has admitted that cable connection was already disconnected. The 2^nd respondent has not called for the petitioner for any enquiry before passing the impugned order. The learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner is a physically challenged person.

¶33

3.The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit that the petitioner is having an arrears of Rs.2,07,702/- and the penalty for default for the subscription amount is Rs.82,321/- totalling to Rs.2,90,023/-. The petitioner was irregular in paying the subscription and caused loss to the respondent Corporation.

¶34

4.This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the materials placed on record.

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

WP(MD)No.1432 of 2018

¶38

5.The impugned order came to be passed pursuant to the

¶39

directions of this Court in WP(MD)No.5698, 4543 and 4544 of

¶40

2017, dated 12.07.2017. The said writ petitions were filed challenging the demand notice issued by the respondent Corporation demanding the arrears of subscription charge from the petitioner on 20.04.2016. Admittedly the

¶41

petitioner was a Local Cable Operator with the respondent Corporation from the year 2003. In the year 2012 his

¶42

service connection was disconnected. Thereafter the demand

¶43

notice was issued challenging the same, the petitioner has

¶44

filed the writ petition in WP(MD)No.5698 of 2017. Further pending this writ petition, the petitioner has

¶45

submitted a representation to waive the petitioner's

¶46

amount. However it was rejected by the respondents.

¶47

Therefore this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ

¶48

petition. The petitioner having challenged the demand

¶49

notice in WP(MD)No.5698 of 2017, has submitted a

¶50

representation to waive the arrears of subscription. The

¶51

said request of the petitioner has been already rejected that the petitioner has not paid the subscription to the

¶52

respondent Corporation from March 2012. Therefore,

¶53

4/6

¶54

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

¶55

WP(MD)No.1432 of 2018

¶56

this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

19.02.2024

DSK

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation, Chennai – 600 005.

¶61

2.The Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Network, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶62

5/6

¶63

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

¶64

WP(MD)No.1432 of 2018

¶65

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶66

dsk

¶67

WP(MD)No.1432 of 2018

¶68

19.02.2024

¶69

6/6

¶70

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

T.Murugan, S/O.Thangaiah Nadar v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

T.Murugan, S/O.Thangaiah Nadar v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Vs Deivanayagi

Alagarsamy Vs The Commissioner

A. Vairamuthu Vs Singaravel

Paranibalan. T Vs The Regional Transport Officer

G.Balamurugan Vs the District Collector

Muthukrishnan, Vs the Managing Director