WP/39090/2015 of M/s. Sai Communications Networks, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, on 31 December 2015

O R D E R :

In this Writ Petition, petitioner assails the action of respondents2 to 6 in interfering with his business as an authorized Cable TVOperator/Multi Service Provider (MSO).

2. Petitioner alleges that at the instance of the 7[th] respondent, whois a competitor, the respondents 1 to 6 are severing the cable wires ofthe petitioner without any valid reason, in spite of the fact that thepetitioner has got permissions from all the concerned authorities andeven though the said permissions are subsisting.

3. The respondents 2 to 4 have filed counter-affidavit contendingthat the cable TV operators, like the petitioner, are using 11 KV & LTPoles erected by them for running their cable network; that aproceeding vide S.O.O.Ms.No.151, dt.25.11.2005 was issued by therespondents 2 to 4, not to allow cable T.V. operators to run theirnetwork on APSPDCL poles and to remove all the existing wires on thesaid polls before 31.12.2005; that if the cable TV operator wants to runtheir network on the said supports of respondents 2 to 4, they wouldhave to pay the penalty on the rates prescribed. It is furthercontended that on 26.11.2015, the Assistant Engineer, Operation,Ponnur Rural has noticed laying of new cable wires on electrical polesat Ponnur surrounding area without obtaining any prior permission, anda notice was therefore issued to the petitioner on 26.11.2015 to removethe same, but the petitioner refused to remove it; and that was why on29.11.2015, the local police was informed and newly erected cablewires of the petitioner were removed.

4. The 5[th] respondent filed counter stating that no permission had been obtained by the petitioner from them as mandated by Section 4(b)of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 as amended in2011 by the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Amendment Act,2011.

5. According to the 5[th] respondent under that provision any cableoperator entitled for providing cable services may independently layand establish cables and erect polls under, over, along, across, in orupon any immovable property vested in or under the management of apublic authority, subject to permission being obtained from the saidpublic authority. It is further stated that the 5[th] respondent had grantedsuch permission on 23.11.2015 to the 7[th] respondent but the petitionerhas not obtained such permission.

6. The fact that the petitioner does not possess the requisitepermission from the 5[th] respondent for laying the cable wires, is notdisputed by the counsel for the petitioner but he states that in spite ofseveral attempts made to obtain the said permission, the 5[th]respondent is not even receiving the application for grant of suchpermission.

7. This allegation is denied by the counsel for the 5[th] respondent.

8. Counsel for the 7[th] respondent also supported respondents 2 to 5and contended that the petitioner did not have permission from the 5[th]respondent for laying his cable wires and that he had obtained saidpermission from the 5[th] respondent.

9. In view of the fact that the petitioner had not obtained anypermission from the 5[th] respondent under Section 4(b) of the CableTelevision Networks (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2011, the action of the respondents in preventing or interfering with the petitioner’sbusiness activity cannot be found fault with. However, if the petitionersecures such permission from the 5[th] respondent, the respondentsshall not interfere with his business activity, except in accordance withlaw.

10. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the aboveobservation and the WV.MP.No.4721 of 2015 is allowed to the aboveextent. There shall be no order as to costs.

11. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any, shall standclosed.

31[st] December, 2015.gra

______________________________

M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J