M.Paramasivam Vs The Secretary

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to cancel any online registration provided to the respondent No.4, if granted and if not granted, to reject any application made by him for issuance of online registration in his name, based on the petitioner's representation dated 25.03.2025.

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.17018 of 2025

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For R1 & R2 : Mr.V.Vanangamudi Senior Standing Counsel For R3 : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has approached this Court to direct the official respondents 1 to 3 to cancel the online registration provided to the respondent No.4, if granted and if not granted to reject the application made by the fourth respondent for issuance of online registration based on the petitioner's representation dated 25.03.2025.

¶21

According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent is not entitled for registration as cable TV operator as per Section 4A of the Cable TV Regulation Act, which was inserted in the Cable TV Network (Regulation) Act, 1995, dated 25.10.2011. According to the petitioner, any transmission or retransmission can be done only through STB providing digital signal.

¶22

The specific case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.4 without having any valid document was illegally transmitting the signal to the customers in the area and without abiding the conditions laid down by the first respondent and the second respondent, Ministry for Information and Broadcasting and by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P(MD)No.17018 of 2025

¶26

Although the petitioner has made serious allegations against the fourth respondent, this Court is not inclined to give any finding regarding the correctness of the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the affidavit. It would suffice to state that there can be a direction to the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 to pass appropriate orders after the respondent No.3 gives a report of the ground reality. It is needless to state that the respondent No.3 shall give notice to respondent No.4 before giving any report to the respondents Nos.1 & 2. Respondent No.1 shall thereafter, pass appropriate

¶27

orders after hearing the petitioner and the fourth respondent.

¶28