IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31749 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K.SAJEEVAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, SAJ VISION, CABLE TV NETWORK, KAKKAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION OFFICE, KANNUR. 3. RAMESH BABU, PARVATHI VISION, CHANDINI SADAN, ATHIRAKAM, MUNDAYAD P.O., KANNUR. ADV.SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 31749 OF 2008 D ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent who is a cable T.V. operator is functioning in the same area that the petitioner is functioning without getting sanction from the Electricity Board and that the 3rd respondent has unauthorisedly drawn radio frequency co-axial cables through the same poles through which petitioner is granted sanction. Petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 representation. In the nature of the judgment which I propose to pass, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to the 3rd respondent. 2. I heard learned standing counsel also. Writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P3, if it has been received and pending consideration, with notice to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks