M SENTHIL VADIVEL Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU ARASU CABLE CORPORATION TV LTD; DISTRICT COLLECTOR SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT; DEPUTY MANAGER/SPECIAL TAHSILDAR TAMIL NADU ARASU CABLE CORPORATION TV LTD; D PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 in both the writ petition are one and the same. The issue involved in both the writ petitions are inter- connected with each other. Therefore, by consent of counsel for both sides, the writ petitions are taken up for hearing and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In the first writ petition, being WP No. 1585 of 2016, the challenge is to the order dated 13.01.2016 passed by the first respondent, by which the licence issued to the petitioner and another as Taluk Cable Television Operator (in short TCO) has been rescinded. The subsequent writ petition, being WP No. 2729 of 2016, has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders passed by the first and third respondent therein whereby the fourth respondent was appointed as TCO and the 58 Decoder Set top boxes kept in the control room hitherto operated by the petitioner has been taken possession of by the respondent/Corporation.

(3.) The case of the petitioner, as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, is that he was appointed as TCO by the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation TV Limited, hereinafter referred to as Corporation, along with one Chandramohan, son of Karuppiah and a licence thereof was issued on 01.04.2013. As per the terms of the licence, the licence holder has to maintain a control room, pay the rent and electricity bill for maintenance of such control room etc., The licence was issued with respect to supervising the Local Cable Operators (in short LCO) within Thirupathur, Karaikudi and Devakottai Taluks. According to the petitioner, even though the Licence was issued in the joint name of the petitioner as well as one Chandramohan, the said Chandramohan did not participate in the business right from the date of issuance of the licence and also did not operate the control room etc., as required under the licence. Therefore, it is the petitioner who is operating the control room, paying the rent, electricity, maintenance charges, salary to technicians etc., It is further stated that the rental agreement relating to the control room stands in the name of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, as per the TCO licence, the licensee has to collect the subscription amount from the LCOs and to remit it in the name of the first respondent periodically. According to the petitioner, his partner Mr. Chandramohan has forged a letter to make it as if the subscription amount has to be paid to him. Believing such representation to be true, the petitioner has paid all the subscription amount collected from the LCOs to the said Chandramohan and he has swindled the entire amount.