CHITTA KISHORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has directed the respondent No.3 to cancel the permission given to the petitioner to run his business in Cable TV Net Work at Housing Board Colony, Nallapadu, Guntur District in the impugned proceedings in L.R. No.44/DB/EE/VJA/94/5833 dated 21-3-1995 which is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(2.) The petitioner holds a licence to run the business in Cable TV Net Work in House No.172, M.I.G. situated in Housing Colony, Nallapadu, Guntur. It appears that petitioner has made an application for licence to respondent No.3 to run the Cable TV Net Work in the Housing Colony. He had also obtained No Objection Certificate from the allottee of House No.172, MIG. He had also complied with all other conditions and accordingly he was granted permission by Respondent No.3 to have theCableTVNetWorkinLr.No.44/DB/EE-VJA/ 94/5833 dated 21-3-1995. It appears that he continued to have the avocation in the said premises after raising funds by way of loan under P.M. R.Y. Scheme etc. It appears, he has also invested lot of money and made preparations to have the Cable TV Net Work. He has made further grievance that he found some other persons installing Dish Antenna in the area, regarding which, he intimated the 3rd respondent and approached the other authorities for removal of the dish antennas illegally installed by the third parties. In the meanwhile, respondent No.2 sent a memorandum to the 3rd respondent in the proceedings - Memo. No.5077/CE/AEE/5/95/978 dated 27-7-1996 directing the 3rd respondent to cancel the permission already granted to the petitioner. That is being challenged by the petitioner on various grounds including that it is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) Respondent No.4 was impleaded as a party to the proceedings subsequently. He is another Cable TV net work operator being proprietor of Sri K. Sai Suresh Cable Net Works, Guntur. He has also presented a grievance that he is a registered Cable TV Operator to run the business in Cable TV Network operation as envisaged under Section 3 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and that he has installed a Dish Antenna in House No.176 of the Housing Board Colony after obtaining the no objection certificate from Nallapadu Housing Board Allottes Welfare Association on 15-1-1995, but, he is prevented from carrying on the business due to the interim order passed by this Court in these proceedings. He further stated that the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the direction of the Chief Engineer, A.P. Housing Board to the Executive Engineer, Vijayawada in the impugned proceedings dated 27-7-1996, to cancel the permission granted to the petitioner to run the Cable TV network in the colony and the purported action of the Board to call for the tenders to regulate the operation of Cable TV Network in the colony and obtained interim direction on 29-2-1996 to the effect that respondents 2 and 3 shall not permit any other person to install Dish Antenna pursuant to Memo. No.5077/CE/AEE.5/95/978 dated 27-7-1996. It is further contended by respondent No.4 that by virtue of Section 3 of the Cable Television Networks Act, 1995, no person shall operate a Cable Television Network unless he is registered as a Cable operator under the Act and this is the only provision governing the TV Network and no other provision from any authority is envisaged under the Act for the operation of the TV Network. Since he being a registered Cable TV operator, as required under Section 3 of the Act, it is contended that he is entitled to carry on the business in Cable TV network in the locality in the said premises and, therefore, the 2nd respondent has no authority to prevent him from carrying on the business.