IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 21751 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SREEJARANI P.S., CHITHRAVANI CABLES. “NOOPURA”, NEDUMGOLAM PO. PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOLLAM - 691 001 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERAVOOR POLICE STATION PARAVOOR, KOLLAM - 691 301 3. SREEJA BAIJU, ANJALI'S CABLE TV NET WORK, KALLUPURAYIL KOTTAPURAM, PARAVOOR KOLLAM - 691301 4. AJI LAL ANCHANDALAYAM KURUMANDAL, PARAVOOR KOLLAM - 691 301 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1& R2 ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P FOR R3 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21751 of 2010(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE CABLE TV REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 2.2.2008 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE 8.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY EXT.P2(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE LINCESE DT.19.122009 ISSUED BY THE CIRAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH EXT.P2(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT.7.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE CHATHANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROAD DIVISION, KOLLAM. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.10.12.2009 FILED BY M/S.C.N.W. NEWS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.6.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.6.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.9.4.2010 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHATHANOOR. EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE LINCESE DATED 1.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DATD. 28.2.2008 & 25.2.2009 ISSUED BY THE PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.3.2010 IN W.P. 36495/2009 EXT.P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 21.8.2010 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. WP(C).No. 21751 of 2010(T) EXT.P14 : TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1058 OF 2010 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION. EXT.P15 : TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MANGALAM DAILY DATED 10.9.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXT.R3(a) : THE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVOOR DATED 21.2.2009. EXT.R3(b) : THE COPY OF THE LINCESE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ASIANET SATELLITE COM- MUNICATIONS PVT. LTD. EXT.R3(c): THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 21751 of 2010 T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following prayers: “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 and 2 to give adequate and effective police protection for the smooth functioning of the cable TV net work of the petitioner from the illegal interference and criminal activities of respondents 3 and 4 and their employees; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the second respondent to enquire and take action on Exts. P6 and P7 complaints.” W.P.(C).No. 21751 of 2010 2 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner is a registered Cable TV operator. Respondents 3 and 4 are also running a Cable TV net work in the area. Out of business rivalry these respondents and their employees are indulging in criminal activities and obstructing the Cable TV transmission of the petitioner. The petitioner filed Exts. P5 to P7 before the second respondent. 3. A counter affidavit is filed, to which a reply affidavit is also filed. The petitioner has filed two I.As. producing certain documents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the filing of the Writ Petition police have registered a crime. Learned counsel for the respondents would also submit that they have also filed complaints. 5. We dispose of the Writ Petition as follows. If there is any threat to the life as such brought to the notice of the second respondent W.P.(C).No. 21751 of 2010 3 by the petitioner or respondents 3 and 4, appropriate action in accordance with law shall be taken by the second respondent. (K.M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm