- Court
- High Court of Madras
- Decided
- 9 June 2023
- Bench
- B.Pugalendhi
- Case no.
- WP(MD) 24046/2017
Judgment
ORDER The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the Digital Addressable System is implemented, the matter has become infructuous. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.
¶2In view of the said submission, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.06.2023 ogy
B.PUGALENDHI, J. ogy To
¶1The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting 'A' Wing Shastri Bhavan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi – 110 001.
¶2M/s.Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Rep. by the General Manager, "Dugar Towers", 6th Floor, Old No.34, New No.123, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
09.06.2023
Case details
Parties and counsel
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.06.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and W.M.P.(MD)No.20184 of 2017 N.Chenthilraj ... Petitioner versus 1. The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting 'A' Wing Shastri Bhavan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi – 110 001. 2. M/s.Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Rep. by the General Manager, "Dugar Towers", 6th Floor, Old No.34, New No.123, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to forbear the 2nd respondent from allotting new Local Cable TV operator in existing Local Cable TV Operator area and allow the petitioner to provide Digital Addressable System Signal to their intending customers based on the representation of the Tamil Nadu Cable TV General Welfare Association dated 23.09.2016 to the first respondent and also direct the 1st respondent to take action on the 2nd respondent and its erring officials for disturbing of implementation of Digital Addressable System as per the choice of his customer. For Petitioners : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For R1 : R.Vijayarajan Central Govt. Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.David Sundar Singh
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.