IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24231 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BHAGAVATI RAJAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.PAKKIRI SWAMY, PROPRIETOR, PRIME SAT VISION, THEKKADI JUNCTION, KUMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION OFFICE, KATTAPPANA. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION OFFICE, KUMALI. 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PEERUMEDU. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1TO4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.24231 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner has entered into Exts.P1 and P1(a) agreements with the respondent for drawing cables through the poles erected by them, on rental basis. It is stated that the petitioner has also drawn cables through more poles than those are covered by Exts.P1 and P1(a), and that, taking into account this general phenomenon prevailing in the State, Board issued Ext.P4 order allowing to regularize such unauthorized drawing of cables by paying three times the pole rental, with effect from the date on which such unauthorized lines have been drawn. Petitioner states that pursuant to the judgment of this court in WP(c). No.29559/08 the Board was required to examine the date on which the line was unauthorizedly drawn and that on WP(c).No.24231/09 2 that basis they can levy charges as provided in Ext.P4. It is stated that, despite all this Ext.P7 order has now been issued by the Board calculating the petitioner's dues from the date of Ext.P1 agreement. This according to the petitioner is against Ext.P4 Board order and also the judgment in WP(c). No.29559/08. 3. Standing Counsel for the respondent Board submits that drawl of the line was even prior to the original agreement and it was therefore that Ext.P7 order has been passed calling upon the petitioner to discharge the liability from the date of the original agreement. 4. Admittedly, certain cable lines have been drawn unauthorizedly. In such circumstances, as per Ext.P4, a cable TV operator is liable to regularize such unauthorized lines by paying thrice the pole rental, but however from the date on which the cable was drawn. 5. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that, the Ist respondent has not determined the date on which the lines have been drawn but however directed the petitioner to pay the pole rental from the date of the original agreement. In my view, WP(c).No.24231/09 3 what the Ist respondent should have done in pursuance to Ext.P4 Board order and the judgment referred to above was to fix the date on which cable was drawn and levy rental from that date, which has not been done in this case. 6. Therefore for that reason I set aside Exts.P6 and P7 and the writ petition is disposed of directing the Ist respondent to determine the date on which the cables were drawn by the petitioner unauthorizedly and call upon the petitioner to regularize the unauthorized cables in terms of Ext.P4. It is directed that before such decision is taken petitioner should also be afforded an opportunity of being heard. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the first respondent who shall undertake the aforesaid exercise and complete the same as expeditiously as possible ad at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.24231/09 4