IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 20651 of 2007(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.S. ANIL KUMAR, S/O.SIVARAMAN KURUP, MATTAKKATTU, PONKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (DISTRIBUTION), CENTRAL, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ALAPPAT ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. M/S.ASIANET SATELITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD., CENTRAL PLAZA, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. R4 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 20651/2007-H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/05/2006 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22/06/2006 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/07/2006 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.17/2001-02 DATED 23/06/2001. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT NO.1/2002-03 DATED 23/12/2002. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.20651 of 2007-H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010. Judgment The petitioner, a private cable TV operator, seeks directions to the first respondent KSE Board in relation to a private contract regarding the utility of KSEB poles for stringing cables of the petitioner. The fourth respondent is provided with the poles, in terms of the decision of the Board. With the passage of time, as of now, the learned standing counsel for the Board states that the petitioner has not executed any supplementary agreement and that by virtue of the decision of the Board, as also the judgment of this Court, only one operator could use a particular alignment. Therefore, leaving the petitioner with whatever he has enjoyed as per the interim order dated 20.07.2007 until now, this writ petition is WPC20651/07 -: 2 :- ordered directing that the petitioner will not be entitled to any further relief. It is clarified that if the petitioner is entitled to participate in a new auction in terms of the guidelines of the Board or any directions of this Court, he will be entitled to do so notwithstanding the fact that this writ petition stands closed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/1704