Full Judgment
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:
18. 07.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition(MD)No.10751 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 Ponram ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Rep. by its Senior Research Officer C & B, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi 110 002. 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Chennai. 2.The Special Tahsildar/Manager, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Dindigul. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to conduct a survey for the number of connections possessed by the petitioner's P.K.Cables for the enrollment No.LCO13952and fix the subscription fees as per the TRAI Regulations and Cable TV Network Regulation Act. !For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth ^For R 1 : Mr.K.K.Senthil Velan Assistant Solicitor General of India For RR2& 3 : Mr.Abdul Saleem Additional Government Pleader :ORDER
Mr.K.K.Senthil Velan, Assistant Solicitor General of India takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.Abdul Saleem, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 2 and 3.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner is a cable TV operator in Dindigul District and he has registered himself with the respondents and he has been allotted Enrollment number.
4. According to the petitioner, he has also deposited three months deposit amount based on the number of points, which are being serviced by the writ petitioner. While so, the respondents have demanded higher contribution from the petitioner by increasing the service points without reference to the petitioner and without conducting any survey.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the points increased by 50% is not in consonance with TRAI regulations and the overall increase of points in entire Tamil Nadu is also illegal. Further, it is stated that the petitioner was not put on notice before such enhancement and the third respondent did not conduct any survey to verify the number of points which is being serviced by the writ petitioner. Only when the petitioner received the bill through Internet, he found that there was a 50% hike without any prior intimation. Therefore, it is stated that the increase of 50% in connection is not in consonance with the TRAI Regulation and Cable Television Network Regulation Act. It is submitted that as per the said Act, a contract for fixation of point is fixed between MSO and LCO should subsist for three years and if the same is increased by the MSO, it is for the MSO to prove that the LCO has suppressed the material which was given to them. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have unilaterally increased the points, without any notice to the petitioner.
6. In the light of the said grievance, this Court is of the view that the aspect as to whether the arbitrary increase of 50% is in consonance with the prior regulation, need not be gone into it at this stage, as the petitioner can be afforded an opportunity to rebut the action of the respondents in increasing the service points of 50% consumption. This could be done by conducting a survey of the service area of the petitioner by the third respondent in the presence of the writ petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner expresses his grievance that when this Court disposed of an earlier batch of cases, the third respondent conducted the survey with the assistance of the police, as a result of which, on several occasions, the Cable TV operator was put to threat and compulsion to sign across the dotted lines.
8. The service points are fixed pursuant to an agreement or arrangement between the petitioner and the respondent Cable TV Corporation. Therefore, this Court is surprised to note as to what is the role of the police in deciding the matter in a civil dispute, however, if there is any criminal offence or law and order problem, the third respondent is justified in requesting the police for necessary assistance. As a matter of course, while fixing the service points, the police authorities cannot interfere, as it is purely a contract between the petitioner and the respondents and in view of the direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the third respondent to conduct a survey of the area of operation in the presence of the petitioner to ascertain extra number of service points within the jurisdiction of the petitioner. On completion of such survey, the third respondent shall prepare a survey report giving all details and submit the same to the second respondent, simultaneously the petitioner should be furnished a copy of the survey report so as to enable him to make any representation or objection on the report to be submitted by the third respondent. Thereafter, the second respondent shall consider the survey report and further the representation/objection, if any, and pass orders on the same as expeditiously as possible. Since this Court has issued direction for conducting fresh survey in the presence of the petitioner, all the demands raised by the Petitioner, as per the original survey shall be complied with by the petitioner as demanded. The petitioner shall continue to remit the charges without any default. The claim for additional amount shall be subject to the further orders to be passed by the first respondent.
9. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the police assistance is required, since the petitioner has formed an Association and at the time of conducting survey, there is interference in the discharge of the duties by the third respondent, who is a public servant. If that be the case, then it is open to the respondents to make a request to the police authorities for adequate protection. However, if there is no such disturbance, there shall not be any police protection. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. To 1.The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Rep. by its Senior Research Officer C & B, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi 110 002. 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Chennai. 2.The Special Tahsildar/Manager, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Limited, Dindigul.