S.P.Arul Kumar Vs the Managing Director

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 in Se.Mu.Aa.No.A6/2410235/2022 issued by the 1^st respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶16

1/8

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.Nos.18467, 18470, 18474 & 18476 of 2025

¶19

W.P.No.18470 of 2025

S.P.Arul Kumar

... Petitioner

Vs

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd., 34/123, 6^th Floor, Dukar Tower, Marsal Salai, Chennai-600 008.

¶24

2.The Special Tahsildar/Deputy Manager, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation, Coimbatore District

¶25

... Respondents

¶26

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to extend the petitioner’s Digital Signed Distribution (DSD) in South-East of Coimbatore District, based on the recommendation of the 2^nd respondent dated 16.04.2025.

¶27

W.P.No.18474 of 2025

¶28

K.R.Kumar ... Petitioner

¶29

Vs

¶30

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd., 34/123, 6^th Floor, Dukar Tower, Marsal Salai, Chennai-600 008.

¶31

2/8

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.Nos.18467, 18470, 18474 & 18476 of 2025

¶34

2.The Special Tahsildar/Deputy Manager, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation, Coimbatore District

¶35

... Respondents

¶36

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to extend the petitioner’s Digital Signed Distribution (DSD) in North-West of Coimbatore District, based on the recommendation of the 2^nd respondent dated 05.04.2025.

¶37

W.P.No.18476 of 2025

R.Udhayakumar

... Petitioner

Vs

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd., 34/123, 6^th Floor, Dukar Tower, Marsal Salai, Chennai-600 008.

¶42

2.The Special Tahsildar/Deputy Manager, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation, Coimbatore District.

¶43

... Respondents

¶44

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to extend the petitioner’s Digital Signed Distribution (DSD) in South-West of Coimbatore District, based on the recommendation of the 2^nd respondent dated 07.04.2025.

¶45

3/8

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.Nos.18467, 18470, 18474 & 18476 of 2025

¶48

In all Petitions

¶49

For Petitioner : Mr.Thiagarajan for Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.David Sundar Singh, Standing Counsel for RR-1 & 2. : Ms.B.Aparna for R-3 (In W.P.No.18467 of 2025)

¶50

COMMON ORDER

¶51

W.P.Nos.18470, 18474 & 18476 of 2025 have been filed seeking a

¶52

direction to the 1^st respondent to extend the petitioners’ Digital signal Distribution (DSD) in South-East, North-West and South-West Regions of Coimbatore on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2^nd respondent While W.P.No.18467 of 2025 has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the first respondent.

¶53

2.The petitioners herein are a Private Local Channel Operators, who were appointed as Digital Signal Distributors (for short ‘DSD’) for the South-East, South-West and North-West regions of Coimbatore District in the year 2022 and were granted licenses for the said purpose. Subsequently, the said licenses were extended up to 31.03.2025 vide order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the 1^st respondent. For further extension of the DSD license, the petitioners approached the 2^nd respondent. Upon receipt of the same, the 2^nd respondent having collected

¶54

4/8

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.Nos.18467, 18470, 18474 & 18476 of 2025

¶57

all the relevant documents for extension of the DSD license and forwarded its recommendation to the 1^st respondent. However, no action was taken by the 1^st respondent on the said recommendation. Consequently, the petitioners were constrained to file Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.18470, 18474 & 18476 of 2025. However, without considering the recommendation of the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent appointed one Balaji as a new Digital Signed Distributor vide impugned order dated 29.04.2025. Aggrieved by which, the W.P.No.18467 of 2025 has been filed.

¶58

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent is wholly arbitrary and illegal inasmuch as public notice was not issued prior thereto calling for applications for appointment of new DSD. He further submitted that no orders have been passed for non-extension of petitioners’ DSD license and therefore, the 1^st respondent has no authority to issue the present impugned order. For the said reasons, the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent is liable to be interfered with.

¶59

In compliance with the earlier direction of this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025, the 1^st respondent appeared before this Court today.

¶60

On instructions, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 & 2 submitted that this Court may grant a week’s time to the 1^st respondent to recall the digital signal distribution license granted in favour of one Balaji vide proceedings dated 29.04.2025 and thereafter to issue license to all the

¶61

5/8

¶62

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

¶63

W.P.Nos.18467, 18470, 18474 & 18476 of 2025

¶64

persons who had made applications before the 1^st respondent within the reasonable time to be stipulated by this Court including the petitioners, the said Balaji, and other eligible persons, if any.

¶65

Learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent has no serious objection.

¶66

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶67

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with a direction to the 1^st respondent to recall the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as undertaken by the learned Additional Advocate General and thereafter, the same shall be considered and the pending applications be decided and license be granted to the eligible persons within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶68

23.10.2025

¶69

Index : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No Nhs

¶70

6/8

¶71

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

¶72

W.P.Nos.18467, 18470, 18474 & 18476 of 2025

¶73

To