THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21635 OF 2006 DATED 18th OCTOBER, 2006 BETWEEN E-Channel Cable T.V. rep.by Managing Director K.Suri Babu, Ramaraopet, Kakinada. … Petitioner and The Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P., Ltd., rep.by its Divisional Engineer, Operations Town, Kakinada, E.G.District and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21635 OF 2006 ORDER: The petitioner firm is cable T.V. operator in Kakinada. The firm entered into an agreement on 04.10.2004 with the first respondent under which the petitioner was permitted to run cable network by using the electric poles of the first respondent. Under the agreement, the petitioner is required to pay the stipulated fixed charges as well as monthly charges. On 14.07.2006, the second respondent sent a communication to the petitioner requesting to remove the cable network lying on electrical poles and make necessary alternative arrangements. The petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 17.07.2006 expressing their willingness to extend the agreement period after negotiations. It is not clear whether first respondent passed any orders thereon. In the meanwhile alleging that the respondents are actively proceeding to remove all the cable network wires on the poles, the present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to remove the cable network from the electric poles as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also seeks consequential direction to consider the request of the petitioner to renew the contract. The Courts in India exercising the power of judicial review either under Article 32 or 226 of Constitution of India have repeatedly held that a writ petition would lie either to enforce a fundamental, statutory or common law right or to compel public authority to discharge public duty (see Director of Settlements v. M.R.Appa Rao[1]). The petitioner’s right is neither constitutional nor statutory. It is purely contractual right under an agreement, dated 04.10.2004. The relevant conditions in the agreement are as follows. General 1.1 The agreements executed shall come into force from the date of execution and shall remain in force for a period of 2 years with the provisions that the terms and conditions including the rates are subject to review, after every year. 1.6 Cable TV operators have no right on the Functioning/Operation & Maintenance of Poles and Lines of A.P.Transco/Discoms in future. 1.7 All unauthorised cable TV networks shall be removed from AP Transco/Discoms poles immediately after the date of agreement. The conditions noticed hereinabove would show that under the terms and conditions of the agreement, the petitioner was permitted to run the cable network only up to 03.10.2004 and thereafter he cannot be said to have any right to be enforced in the writ petition. Indeed, even before the expiry of the period, the second respondent addressed letter, dated 14.07.2006, informing the petitioner that, “due to running of the cable network on the poles, much difficulty has been faced by the Operating staff for climbing the poles, for attending the fuse off calls and other emergencies and that in some cases accidents have taken place due to confusion of number of cable network lines running on the poles of Kakinada Sub Division of APEPDCL”. There is no denial of this situation. Be that as it is, though the petitioner made a representation on 17.07.2006 to the first respondent seeking extension of the contract, he did not pursue the same and having kept quite till first week of October, 2006, till which time the contract was valid, the petitioner now has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner neither demonstrated nor proved any right to warrant the interference. It also cannot be said that the respondents acted arbitrarily in not permitting the petitioner to run the cable network. The letter dated 14.07.2006 issued by the second respondent contains valid reasons. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) 18.10.2006. pln [1] AIR 2002 SC 1598 =(2002) 4 SCC 638