IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29852 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- MALAYALAM TELENET (PVT)LTD., PANDIT KARUPPAN ROAD, THEVARA, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PAULY JOSE. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE OFFICE, ALUVA. 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VADHUTHALA. 5. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PALARIVATTOM. 6. ASSISTANT ENEGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, EDAPPALLY. 7. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KOTHAD. 8. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KALAMASSERY. 9. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VYTTILA. 10. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECRTRICAL SECTION, THRIPUNITHURA. 11. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTIION, AMBALLUR. 12. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, UDAYAMPERUR. 13. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, ALUVA. BY SC SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 29852 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Question raised in this case evolves around the Board Order. Ext.P2 inter alia reads as follows: “Having considered the matter in detail, sanction is accorded to: (i) regularise all unauthorised Cable TV connections with effect from the date of payment of 3 times the floor rate fixed by the Board from the date of unauthorised connection. (ii) The cut-off date for regularizing the unauthorised connection is fixed as 30.9.2008. (iii) The Executive Engineers of Electrical Division should give proper intimation and publicity through media regarding this and to dismantle with effect from 1.10.2008 all unauthorized connections, which has not been regularised as per this order.” 2. According to the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to have regularisation of the cables drawn over the poles by him unauthorisedly irrespective of whether there are one or more cables. It is stated that though petitioner filed applications, it is not yet considered by the concerned Executive Engineers on the ground that some of the poles for which WPC.29852/2008. 2 sanction is sought are the poles through which other Cable TV networks had already drawn cables. 3. The question to be considered is the interpretation of the Board Order. I think that it is more appropriate that the petitioner represents the matter before the Board itself and the Board give its decision in the matter. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: If the petitioner represents the matter before the first respondent within one week from today, the first respondent will take a decision in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb