Disposed

Radhakrishnan M v. The Secretary

Madras HC29 Apr 2025WP(MD)/13046/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking direction on illegal use of defunct Aircel fiber lines for cable TV signals. Due to parties' consent, notice was dispensed with, and the Court directed the central respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.04.2025 within four weeks.

Radhakrishnan M Vs The Secretary — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.13046 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.13046 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.9295 of 2025

M.Radhakrishnan

... Petitioner

-vs-

The Secretary, The Ministry For Information and Broadcasting, Government of India,

¶11

2, Krishna Menon Marg, New Delhi - 110 001.

¶12

The Secretary, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawaharalal Nehru Marg ( Old Minto Road), New Delhi - 110 002

¶13

The District Collector/ Nodal Officer (Cable Tv), Thoothukudi, Thoothukud District.

¶14

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

¶15

Rajalakshmi, Special Tahsildar/ Manager, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable Tv Corporation, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

PRAYER

¶19

W.P.(MD).No.13046 of 2025

¶20

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to take action against the 4^th and 5^th respondents for illegally using defunct Aircel Optic Fiber Network Lines illegally for transmitting Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Signal, which is laid from Kovilpatti to Vilathikulam, Vilathikulam to Nagalapuram, Kovilpatti to Pasuvanthanai and Pasuvanthanai to Thoothukudi, based on the representation of the petitioner dated 22.04.2025.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondents : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, Spl. Govt. Pleader [R3] Ms.J.R.Annie Abinaya [R4 & R5]

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the 4 th and 5 th respondents for illegally using defunct Aircel Optic Fiber Network Lines illegally for transmitting Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Signal, which is laid from Kovilpatti to Vilathikulam, Vilathikulam to Nagalapuram, Kovilpatti to Pasuvanthanai and Pasuvanthanai to Thoothukudi, based on the representation of the petitioner dated 22.04.2025.

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD).No.13046 of 2025

¶27

2. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is disposed at the stage

¶28

of admission itself. Considering the nature of the order going to be passed in this writ petition, notice to the respondents 1 and 2 is dispensed with.

¶29

3. The 4 th and 5 th respondents are transmitting Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Signal by using defunct Aircel Optic Fiber Network Lines illegally. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 22.04.2025 to the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the 4 th and 5 th respondents. Since the said representation was not considered, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶30

It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, nonconsideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD).No.13046 of 2025

¶34

In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.04.2025 , on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5, as well as all other persons, who may be necessary in the subject matter, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the respondents to consider the same on its own merits.

¶35

6. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

29.04.2025

¶37

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No sm

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD).No.13046 of 2025

¶41

TO:-

¶42

The Secretary,

¶43

The Ministry For Information and Broadcasting, Government of India,

¶44

2, Krishna Menon Marg, New Delhi - 110 001.

¶45

The Secretary, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawaharalal Nehru Marg ( Old Minto Road), New Delhi - 110 002

¶46

The District Collector/ Nodal Officer (Cable Tv), Thoothukudi, Thoothukud District.

¶47

5/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.(MD).No.13046 of 2025

¶50

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶51

¶52

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.13046 of 2025

¶53

Dated: 29.04.2025

¶54

6/6

¶55

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

Radhakrishnan M v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishnan M v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Rajanagam Vs The Executive Officer

Indhira Vs The District Collector

Rr Hotel Vs The Commissioner

Vivek Raj Vs The Regional Passport Officer

R.Jeeva Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Vinukumar P Vs The Municipal Commissioner