Dismissed¶29

P.Anitha v. the Chairman and Managing Director

Madras HC7 Apr 2026WP/4830/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; W.P.No. 4830 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.5269 of 2024; Justice M. Dhandapani; decided 07-04-2026. Petitioner P.Anitha challenged TACTV (Tamil Nadu Government Cable TV Corporation) order dated 10.07.2023 granting cable TV operation permission to fourth respondent Devi at Kannagi Nagar, Thuraipakkam; sought consideration of representation dated 12.12.2023. Held: writ petition dismissed on ground of delay and laches (filed after more than one year; fourth respondent already operating; rejection order not enclosed); no costs; miscellaneous petition closed. Statute referenced: Article 226, Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.5269 of 2024) closed. ¶29

P.Anitha Vs the Chairman and Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 4830 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No. 4830 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.5269 of 2024

P.Anitha

..Petitioner(s)

The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Government Cable TV Corporation Limited, No.807, 5^th LN., Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶11

The Deputy Manager/Special Tahsildar, Cable TV Organisation, No.807, 5^th LN., Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶12

The Executive Engineer (Administration), Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Division No.8, Plot No.367, Head Secretariat Quarters, Kannagi Nagar, Chennai-600 097.

¶13

Devi

¶14

..Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in favour of the fourth respondent in proceedings No.Se.Aa.No.1037/TACTV/Cable/Chennai/2023 dated 10.07.2023 and quash

¶16

Page1 of 5

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 4830 of 2024

¶19

the same and consequently, directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 12.12.2023.

¶20

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Manimaran For Respondent(s): Mr.David Sundar Singh for R1 and R2 Mr.G.Venkatesan for R3 Mr.T.I.Ramanathan for R4

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner claiming that she has been running cable TV Operation in the locality till 2024 and suddenly the fourth respondent has been granted permission for running cable TV Operation in her locality, has challenged the impugned order passed by the second respondent in favour of the fourth respondent dated 10.07.2023 and to consider her representation dated 12.12.2023.

¶23

It is alleged by the petitioner that she has been running cable TV Operation in the locality, namely, Kannagi Nagar, Thuraipakkam and has complied with the terms and conditions of the license agreement. Her license was renewed from 11.12.2023 to 10.11.2024. However, the second respondent has passed the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 granting permission to the fourth respondent. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that she has complied with the terms and conditions as set out in her license agreement and

¶24

Page2 of 5

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 4830 of 2024

¶27

therefore, the license ought not to have been given to the fourth respondent in the place of the petitioner.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.

¶29

Though the impugned order was passed on 10.07.2023 granting license to the fourth respondent to run Cable TV Operations in the locality in question, the petitioner has filed this writ petition only in the 2024 with a delay of one year. That apart, the order rejecting the petitioner’s representation to continue her license has not been enclosed. That apart, since the writ petition has been filed with a delay of more than one year before which the fourth respondent has already started the operations of Cable TV in the locality in question, this Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

07-04-2026

¶31

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ssb

¶32

__________ Page3 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

WP No. 4830 of 2024

¶35

¶36

1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Government Cable TV Corporation Limited, No.807, 5^th LN., Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶37

2.The Deputy Manager/Special Tahsildar, Cable TV Organisation, No.807, 5^th LN., Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶38

3.The Executive Engineer (Administration), Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Division No.8, Plot No.367, Head Secretariat Quarters, Kannagi Nagar, Chennai-600 097.

¶39

__________ Page4 of 5

¶40

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

WP No. 4830 of 2024

M.DHANDAPANI J.

ssb

WP No. 4830 of 2024