VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2023 › High Court of Madras

N.Pandiarajan,S/O.S.Natarajan, v. Union of India, Rep by Its

CLOSED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
20 June 2023
Bench
B.Pugalendhiauthor
Case no.
WP(MD) 1080/2018

Judgment

ORDER The petitioner, claiming to be a Local Cable TV Operator, has filed this writ petition for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with his Cable TV Business in Cuddalore in Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District till the transmission is effected through Digital Addressable System.

¶2The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no more and therefore, he has to find out the legal heirs and to take necessary steps to bring the legal heirs on record.

¶3The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Tamilnadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited submits that the petitioner was a Local Cable TV Operator and he was having dues to an extent of Rs.5 lakhs and therefore, the connection has not been provided. Subsequently, after filing of this writ petition, the petitioner has paid dues to the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited and therefore, he was permitted to run the cable TV business till the Digital Addressable System was effected. Now, the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation is providing links through digitally on Digital Addressable System and therefore, nothing survives in this writ petition.

¶4Recording the said submission, this writ petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner's legal heirs to approach the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation as required under law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

20.06.2023 ogy NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No. To

¶1The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Sanchar Bhawan,

¶2The Secretary, Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Mahanagar Dhoor Sanchar Bhawan,

¶3The Managing Director, Dugar Towers, 34 (123), 6th Floor, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶4The District Collector, Theni District, Theni.

¶5The Deputy manager/Special Tahsildar, Theni District.

¶6The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni.

B.PUGALENDHI, J. ogy

20.06.2023

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.06.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and W.M.P.(MD)No.1129 of 2018 N.Pandiarajan ... Petitioner versus 1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Sanchar Bhawan, 2. Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Rep. by its Secretary, Mahanagar Dhoor Sanchar Bhawan, 3. The Managing Director, Dugar Towers, 34 (123), 6th Floor, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 4. The District Collector, Theni District, Theni. 5. The Deputy manager/Special Tahsildar, Theni District. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's cable TV business in Gudalur in Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District, till the transmission is effected through DAS (Digital Addressable System) by providing him free set top boxes by the 3rd respondent, for his 4550 connections. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan For R1 : Mr.P.Paul Pandi, Central Govt. Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.S.Jeyasingh, Central Govt. Standing Counsel For R3 and R5 : Mr.David Sunder Singh, Standing Counsel For R4 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, Government Advocate

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.