IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 22330 of 2003(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- E.RAJEEVAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. SEKHARAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, ZENER CABLE VISION KOTHAMANGALAM, KOILANDI, KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELEXCTRICAL DIVISION VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 3. ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD., CENTRAL PLAZA, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.22330/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.Ts1/CABLE TV/03-04/1/165 DATED 30/4/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIO OF THE ENORSEMENT DATED 11/6/2003 MADE BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KOILANDI NORTH SECTION. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT MADE BY THE ASSITANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KOILANDI DATED 5/7/2003. HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.22330 OF 2003 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a registered cable TV network Operator doing his business under the name and style “Zener Cable Vision”. He was drawing his cables for the operation of the cable TV network mainly through the poles owned and maintained by him. The lst respondent invited competitive tenders from the cable TV operators for granting permission to draw their network cables through the electric poles owned and maintained by the K.S.E.Board. The petitioner is one of participants in the tender for the area. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the scrutiny and verification, the K.S.E. Board allotted use of 472 electric poles to the petitioner. Ext.P1 is the order passed by the 2nd respondent permitting the petitioner to utilize 472 electric poles. On the same day the K.S.E. Board passed another order, which is produced as Ext.P3, whereby out of the -2- W.P.(C)No.22330/2003 472 electric poles allotted to the petitioner 176 poles were reduced and diverted to the 3rd respondent without passing any orders. There is only an endorsement in Ext.P3 reducing certain number of poles and diverting the same to the 3rd Respondent. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court seeking direction to respondents 1 and 2 to allot him the poles sanctioned as per Ext.P1. There is no justification for the K.S.E. Board to reduce the number of poles after passing an order sanctioning the same. It is not known who made the endorsement and consequent reduction. However, the petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition entered into an agreement with the K.S.E. Board for the use of 296 poles, which is produced as Ext.R2(a). The grievance of the petitioner is well- founded, since the Board has no authority to divert 176 poles allotted to the petitioner by Ext.P1. In order to run the business, and to overcome the stalemate due to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was forced to agree with the suggestion made by the K.S.E. Board, in spite of allotment of reduced number of poles. The K.S.E. Board is bound to comply with the -3- W.P.(C)No.22330/2003 terms of the order, Ext.P1. Learned counsel for the K.S.E. Board submitted that the 3rd respondent filed another writ petition and obtained an order of status quo. In the circumstances, I direct respondents 1 and 2 to allot forthwith the balance poles out of the 472 poles to the petitioner, if the poles are available for utilization. If necessary, the Board shall execute another agreement stipulating the terms for utilization of the balance poles. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.