This Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the second respondent's rejection of the petitioner's application for a Local Cable Operator license in Periyakoodakovil, holding that admitting a new operator in an area already serviced by a licensed respondent was untenable.
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(MD)No.4225 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P(MD)No.4225 of 2024 and
W.M.P(MD)No.4075 of 2024
P.Rasukutty
... Petitioner
Vs
3.R.Maheswari ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.En.No.34/2024/A.KTv dated 06.02.2024 and quash the same and consequently directing the second respondent to grant Local Cable Operator (LCO) license to the petitioner at Periyakoodakovil area of Madurai District and also to issue Government Cable TV Setup box and all other permission to run the Cable TV as Cable Operator.
1/6
| For Petitioner | : Mr.M.Pandian |
|---|---|
| For RR 1 & 2 | : Mrs.S.Devasena |
| For R – 3 | : Mr.P.Natarajan |
W.P(MD)No.4225 of 2024
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 06.02.2024 thereby rejecting the request made by the petitioner seeking licence for the area of Periyakooda Kovil, Madurai District.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
3.The petitioner is doing business of cable TV operator. The third respondent is also a cable TV operator for the area of Paraipatti Village for several years. There was a dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent in respect of operating the cable TV connections. The petitioner also obtained license for doing cable TV business. The petitioner also alleged that the third respondent disturbed the cable TV operations of the petitioner and filed a Writ Petition before this Court in WP(MD)No.1715 of 2022. This Court by 2/6
W.P(MD)No.4225 of 2024
order dated 22.08.2023 granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh application before the second respondent for service provided for the cable TV corporation. On the application made, the second respondent, after conducting the detailed enquiry, rejected the request made by the petitioner seeking a local cable TV operator agency.
4.On perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent and on the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would reveal that during the course of enquiry and application submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner insisted to grant him local cable TV operator at Periyakoodakovil area, where the third respondent is already running the cable TV operations by valid license. Further, Periyakoodakovil Village of Paraipatti Panchayat in Madurai District is a small village and having only 30 houses. Already the third respondent is running the cable TV business after obtaining valid license for the past 11 years without any hindrance. Now the petitioner is also seeking license to operate cable TV for the same area. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is nothing but a competitor of the third respondent and making allegations as
3/6
W.P(MD)No.4225 of 2024
against the third respondent and submitted an application for a grant of local cable TV operator for Periyakoodakovil area. That apart, the petitioner has no adequate subscribers to consider his request. Already, the third respondent has all the subscribers in the entire area. Therefore the request made by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the second respondent dated 06.02.2024. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the second respondent dated 06.02.2024. Hence, this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
20.12.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes ps
4/6
W.P(MD)No.4225 of 2024
To
5/6
W.P(MD)No.4225 of 2024
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in W.P(MD)No.4225 of 2024
20.12.2024
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the rejection of the Local Cable Operator license application is meritless and the impugned order is without infirmity or illegality.
Whether admitting a new cable TV operator in an area already covered by a validly licensed operator violates licensing principles.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Rasukutty
Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable T.V Corporation Limited
The Special Tahsildar
R.Maheswari
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
