Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Radhakrishnan .M Vs The Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Home
Madras HC
2025
Radhakrishnan .M Vs The SecretaryRadhakrishnan .M v. The Secretary

Dismissed¶26

Radhakrishnan .M v. The Secretary

Mandamus – Article 226 – illegal transmission of cable signal without licence

Madras HC21 Nov 2025WP(MD)/28016/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), W.P.(MD)No.28016 of 2019, decided 14.11.2025 by Justice P.T.Asha. M.Radhakrishnan v. Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, District Collector/Nodal Officer (Cable TV) Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd., Special Tahsildar (Cable TV), M.Karuppasamy and Muthukumar. Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus for action against unlicensed cable signal transmission at Thoothukudi; dismissed as infructuous on counsel's statement that nothing survived; no costs; no substantive adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The Court recorded the learned counsel's submission that the present writ petition had become infructuous and that nothing survived to be adjudicated, and consequently dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, with no costs. ¶26

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 and 2 should be directed to take action against respondents 5 and 6 for transmitting cable signal illegally without proper licence, and against respondent 3 for permitting the continuation of such illegality, on the petitioner's representation dated 01.10.2022.

Court's answer

The Court recorded the learned counsel's submission that the present writ petition had become infructuous and that nothing survived to be adjudicated, and consequently dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, with no costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus - Article 226 - illegal transmission of cable signal without licence - Writ Petition (MD) No.28016 of 2019 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in which the petitioner sought directions to respondents 1 and 2 (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the District Collector/Nodal Officer, Cable TV, Thoothukudi) to act against respondents 5 and 6 for transmitting cable signal illegally without proper licence and against respondent 3 (Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd.) for permitting the continuance of the illegality, based on a representation dated 01.10.2022. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petition had become infructuous and nothing survived for adjudication. The Court recorded the submission and dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, with no costs.

A

W.P.(MD)No.28016 of 2019

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 14.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

W.P.(MD)No.28016 of 2019

M.Radhakrishnan .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Secretary, The Ministry for Information and Broadcasting, Government of India,

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

2.The District Collector/Nodal Officer (Cable TV), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

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

4.The Special Tahsildar (Cable TV), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

5.M.Karuppasamy

6.Muthukumar .. Respondents

_________Page 1 of 4

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

W.P.(MD)No.28016 of 2019

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to take action against the 5^th and 6^th respondents for transmitting cable signal illegally without proper licence and subsequently also take action against the 3^rd respondent for permitting the continuation of such illegality, based on the representation of the petitioner dated 01.10.2022.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For R1 : Mr.C.Nandagopal C.G.S.P.C For R2 & R4 : Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mrs.J.R.Annie Abinaya Additional Standing Counsel For R5 : Mr.J.Vishnu For R6 : No Appearance ORDER

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

the present writ petition has become infructuous and nothing survives to be adjudicated.

_________Page 2 of 4

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

W.P.(MD)No.28016 of 2019

Recording the same, this Writ Petition stands dismissed as

infructuous. No costs.

14.11.2025

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes

gbg

To

1.The Secretary, The Ministry for Information and Broadcasting, Government of India,

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

2.The District Collector/Nodal Officer (Cable TV), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

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

4.The Special Tahsildar (Cable TV), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

_________Page 3 of 4

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

W.P.(MD)No.28016 of 2019

P.T.ASHA, J.

gbg

W.P.(MD)No.28016 of 2019

14.11.2025

_________Page 4 of 4

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether respondents 1 and 2 should be directed to take action against respondents 5 and 6 for transmitting cable signal illegally without proper licence, and against respondent 3 for permitting the continuation of such illegality, on the petitioner's representation dated 01.10.2022.medium confidence¶19
The court held
The Court recorded the learned counsel's submission that the present writ petition had become infructuous and that nothing survived to be adjudicated, and consequently dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, with no costs.ratio¶26

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶19

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to take action against respondents 5 and 6 for transmitting cable signal illegally without proper licence, and subsequently against respondent 3 for permitting continuation of such illegality, based on the petitioner's representation dated 01.10.2022.¶19

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
M.Radhakrishnan¶7
Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth
respondent
The Secretary, The Ministry for Information and Broadcasting, Government of India¶9
Mr.C.Nandagopal C.G.S.P.C
respondent
The District Collector/Nodal Officer (Cable TV), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District¶11
Mr.A.Kannan
respondent
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd.¶12
Mrs.J.R.Annie Abinaya
respondent
The Special Tahsildar (Cable TV), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District¶13
Mr.A.Kannan
respondent
M.Karuppasamy¶14
Mr.J.Vishnu
respondent
Muthukumar¶15

Coram

AI extract

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHAauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 21 Nov 2025 · November
Registered: 12 Dec 2022
Case no.: WP(MD)/28016/2022
CNR: HCMD011206542022
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: P.t. Asha
Disposal: DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS
Case type: W.P.(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from P.t. Asha

Vellaisamy.M Vs the Commissioner
20 Nov 2025
Cleetus.M.M Vs The Principal Secretary
20 Nov 2025
The Roman Catholic Diocese Vs the Director of School
20 Nov 2025
The Secretary to Government Vs C.Kayalvizhi
21 Nov 2025
The Tirumangalam Pandiyakula Kshatriya Nadars Vs the Commissioner
21 Nov 2025
Sabareswaran Vs The Secretary to Government
21 Nov 2025

Cite this judgement

Radhakrishnan .M v. The Secretary, WP(MD)/28016/2022 (MAD), decided on 21 November 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history1

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to take action against respondents 5 and 6 for transmitting cable signal illegally without proper licence, and subsequently against respondent 3 for permitting continuation of such illegality, based on the petitioner's representation dated 01.10.2022.

View full history

Bench / Coram

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

Parties & counsel