Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE19H DAY OF AUGUST201428TH SRAVANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 16685 of 2014 (I) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- DEN MALABAR CABLE VISION (P) LTD TIRUR ROAD, PUTHANATHANI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.) SMT.P.R.REENA RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL DIVISION, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-676101.
2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, PUTHANATHANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-676552. R1,R2BY ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1908-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16685 of 2014 (I) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND ELECTRICITY BOARD DT.1-3-2004. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DT.10-1-2014 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.40,000/- BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2A : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS NO.378 AND379DT.4-12-2013 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.50,000 EACH BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2B : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS NO.41 AND42DT.10-2-2014 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.30,000 AND RS.47552/- BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2C : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.9 DATED101-2014 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.37552/- BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.7-5-2014 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE1T RESPONDENT DT.26-6-2014. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
IN WPC150442013 DT.14-6-2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P. A. TO JUDGE Pn C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ----------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 16685 of 2014 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a company conducting cable TV network operations within the limits of the 1st respondent. By virtue of Ext.P3 notice one Sri. Kunjikhader, Proprietor of Malabar Vision Cable TV Network was requested to remit the arrears of pole rental due, based on the agreements executed by the said firm with the 1st respondent. The petitioner Company claims that the Firm 'M/s.Malabar Vision Cable TV Network' was taken over by the Company and the cable TV operations are now conducted by the petitioner Company. The petitioner Company had submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 1st respondent seeking time for payment of the arrears demanded in Ext.P3, through installments. Since the said request was not considered and since it was threatened that the cables will be dismantled if the arrears is not paid, this writ petition is filed. WP(c). No. 16685 of 2014 -2- 2. In a statement filed on behalf of respondents it is mentioned that there is no contract executed with the petitioner Company for usage of any electrical poles for drawing of cable network. It is stated that the agreements were executed only with Sri.Kunhikhader, Proprietor of 'Malabar Vision Cable TV Network', Puthanathani and the amount is due from the said firm as arrears pertaining to the pole rental due for the year 2013-14. It is further mentioned that the 1st respondent had already permitted the defaulting firm to remit the arrears in six equal monthly installments. But after payment of 3 installments the payments were again defaulted. Therefore the petitioner Company is not entitled to seek any installment facility for remittance of the arrears, is the contention.
3. If the business of network cable distribution was taken over by the petitioner company, it is for the petitioner company to approach the 2nd respondent to seek permission for usage of the poles allotted to the erstwhile firm. It is for WP(c). No. 16685 of 2014 -3- the 1st respondent to take a decision with respect to transfer of the licence, if necessary after insisting the petitioner Company to execute fresh agreement, after remittance of the amounts remaining in default. There is absolutely no justification for the petitioner company to seek installment facility without transferring the license or without getting appropriate permission for continuance of the facility under the agreement already executed. If the petitioner intends to continue the business on the basis of transfer of the license, it is left open to the petitioner company to approach the 1st respondent, after remitting the arrears of rental amount if any due.
4. This court is of the opinion that, if the petitioner approaches the 1st respondent with proper applications and also seeks permission to make payments of the arrears in installments within a stipulated period, it is for the 1st respondent to consider the same and to take an appropriate decision. WP(c). No. 16685 of 2014 -4- 5. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent under proper applications as discussed above. In order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent as mentioned above, coercive steps for disconnection of the cables threatened in Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 2 weeks from today. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. Pn