IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 31427 of 2007(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BIJU.M.G., AGED 36, S/O.M.C.GEORGE, MECHERYPADDY HOUSE, P.O.ALAPPAT, THRISSUR-680 641. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR. 3. SATALITE CABLE NET WORK, KARTHIKA COMPLEX, KANJANI ROAD, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO FOR R1,2 SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R1,2 SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R3 SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.31427 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner and the 3rd respondent are cable T.V operators. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, Ext.P1 is the agreement that they have entered into with the first respondent, wherein they have been allowed to use the electricity poles of the Corporation for laying cables of the cable Television net work. Period of agreement is 3 years with an option for renewal. The agreement is dated 1.12.2006. It is the common case of the petitioner and the first respondent that in one area in addition to the Asianet there can be only one cable TV operator who can draw line. Clause 40 of the agreement also specifies the areas which are allotted to the petitioner and this includes Madambi lane as well. WP(c).No.31427/07 2 2. Petitioner states that during the currency of the agreement, by Ext.P2, the Corporation called upon them to dismantle its cable laid at the Madambi lane, in order to allow the 3rd respondent to draw line through the said area. It is also stated in Ext.P2 that the cost incurred by the petitioner for laying its cable lines will be reimbursed by the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner so long as the agreement remains valid, petitioner is entitled to be retain his cables laid through the Madambi lane and the unilateral direction issued by the Corporation by Ext.P2 is illegal. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Corporation. It is stated that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent regarding the drawing of cable line in certain areas of the Corporation. It is stated that a meeting of the parties was convened on 9.4.2007 in the chamber of the Chairman, Public Works Standing Committee of the Corporation and that despite their least efforts, the dispute was not settled. According to the Corporation, the parties were WP(c).No.31427/07 3 advised to resolve the dispute by mutual discussion. But however, there was no settlement arrived at. A further meeting was held on 10.5.2007 and the Corporation decided to refer the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent for the opinion of the Cable T.V Operators Association, District Committee. It is stated that accordingly, the Cable TV Operators Association informed the Corporation on 25.8.2007 their decision that the petitioner should withdraw from the Madambi lane, in order to enable the 3rd respondent to lay his cables using the poles belonging to the Corporation. It is stated that it was accordingly that they issued Ext.P2. 4. The 3rd respondent has not filed any counter affidavit but supports Ext.P2. 5. Evidently, the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent corporation is governed by the terms of Ext.P1 agreement. The agreement is valid for a period of 3 years and so long as the agreement remains valid and binding on the parities, the petitioner is entitled to enjoy the benefits of the WP(c).No.31427/07 4 said agreement and the Corporation cannot unilaterally make any variation to its conditions. If that be so, Ext.P2 by which the area Madambi lane allotted to the 3rd respondent is clearly a violation of Ext.P1. Consequently, Ext.P2 cannot survive. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P2 and directing that the parties shall abide by Ext.P1 agreement so long as it remains valid and binding. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.31427/07 5