Disposed

M/s. Ratna Cable Network Through its proprietor, v. The Post Master, Peddapalli, H.O

Telangana HC19 Nov 2010WP/16997/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the respondents' demand for permission to operate a cable TV network in their colonies under the Cable TV Networks Act. The court dismissed the petition on merits, directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation for consideration.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file detailed representation for establishment of Cable TV Network; respondents to consider same on merits.

M/s. Ratna Cable Network Through its proprietor, Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.16997 of 2005

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in directing the petitioner to take permission from them for running the cable TV network business in Singareni collieries colonies of Ramagundam, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶5

According to the petitioner, it has been doing the business of cable TV network after obtaining due license from the competent authority as required under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act, 1995). It is the case of the petitioner that since 1991, it is giving the cable TV network connections in Singareni Collieries colonies. While so, the respondents 2 to 5, without having any authority or power under the Act, are insisting it to obtain permission from them for running its cable TV Network business in the said colonies. Hence, this writ petition.

¶6

There is no necessity of going into all the details.

¶7

Respondents 2 to 5 filed a detailed counter affidavit, whereby they stated that they, being the General Managers of certain mines and colonies in their control, are having fixed area of operation consisting of mines, establishment and colonies in their control, and that the petitioner failed to give the details of its place of operation in their area. It is stated that the petitioner was stopped from erecting the poles, pillars and sheds unauthorisedly in the land belonging to the respondent company. It is also stated that the petitioner, in the garb of licence obtained by it under the Act, 1995, intends to unauthorisedly fasten his cable wires to the electrical poles of the respondent

¶8

company, erect its poles in the colonies, construct rooms/sheds for its operation of cable TV network, charge licence fee at the rates unilaterally fixed by it and create monopolistic atmosphere. It is further stated that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as it gives rise to unfettered liberty to it to enter into the colonies and establishments of the respondent company and do whatever it likes in the name of Cable TV network operation and that it must obtain the permission of the respondent company for doing its cable TV network business in the colonies and establishments of the respondent company.

¶9

In the facts and circumstances of the case and also the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, without expressing any opinion on merits, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition as under:

¶10

“The petitioner is directed to file a detailed representation before the respondents, for establishment of Cable TV Network in the colonies of the respondent Company, and on filing such representation, the respondents are at liberty to consider the same on its own merits and take necessary action as per law.”

¶11

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶12

_____________ C.V.RAMULU,J

¶13

19.11.2010 v v

M/s. Ratna Cable Network Through its proprietor, v. The Post Master, Peddapalli, H.O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Ratna Cable Network Through its proprietor, v. The Post Master, Peddapalli, H.O

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

Sri Dega Yerraiah Vs The District Collector

Challa Harinath, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Gorre Laxmi Vs The District Collector, Khammam.

Ch.Madhusudna Rao Vs The Commissioner and Diretor of Settlements

N.T.R.Nagar Phase-Ii Weaker Section Welfare Vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

M Laxmaiah Vs Sri Prasad Rao