IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28878 of 2008(K) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ O.MOOSA, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KHADER, PROPRIETOR,PERAMBRA CABLE TV NETWORK,T.B.ROAD, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION OFFICE, NADAPURAM,P.O.KALLACHI, KOZHIKODE DT. 3. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SHRI P.P. THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 28878 OF 2008 K -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is conducting a cable TV network. He applied for sanction for drawing cables through 815 poles which was granted by agreement dated 5.4.2002. The agreement expired on 5.4.2007. Petitioner did not take steps for renewal, as according to him, he was disabled. Thereafter, petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation which was directed to be considered by Judgment in W.P.(C). No.17555/08. Ext.P5 resulted. By Ext.P5, the Executive Engineer was directed to take necessary steps to renew the agreement after realising all the amounts due to the Board. The Executive Engineer has issued Ext.P6. In Ext.P6, it is stated as follows: “This Office vide the letter cited reference (3) has requested you to renew the agreement for drawing Cable TV cables through the poles of KSEB after remitting all amounts due to the Board. But you are not turned to renew the agreement till 06-09-08, so you are again requested to renew the agreement by remitting all amount due to the Board before 30-09-08 since the Board vide Board Order cited under reference (4) has refixed the cut off date WPC.28878/08 K 2 for regularizing the unauthorized Cable TV cables as 30-09-08.” 2. Apparently, petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6. According to petitioner, Ext.P6 is not in terms with Ext.P5. Essentially, this is a matter arising out of a contract entered into between the petitioner and the Electricity Board. The Board gave a direction as contained in Ext.P5. If the petitioner feels that Ext.P6 is against Ext.P5, it is for the petitioner to approach the Board. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: If the petitioner moves the first respondent Board within ten days from today, the first respondent will consider and take a decision in the matter within three weeks from the date of filing such application. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge