IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4912 of 2002 Between: Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Sri Daggubati Srinivasa Prasad, S/o. Late Laxmi Narayana Chowdary, M/s CHIRALA CABLE CENTRE PVT LIMITED, 22-15-39/E, Woodnagar, Chirala. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, Suthern Power Distribution Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd, TIRUPATHI. 2 The Superintendent Engineer, Operation Divison, Southern Power Distribution Corporation of A.P. Limited, ONGOLE. 3 The Divisional Engineer (Operation), Southern Power Distribution Corporation of A.P. Limited, ONGOLE. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus and declare that Proceedings 100.Ms.(OP)No.12, dt. 9.4.2001, and the consequential proceedings bearing No.Lr.No.DEE.O.OGL.TS/F.CABLE TV.OPERATORS/D.NO.5514/01, DT. 15.12.2001, issued by R-3, as being arbitrary illegal and unconstitutional for want of legislative sanction. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.HARI HARAN Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. O. Manohar Reddy. The Court made the following order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No. 4912 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner – M/s. Chirala Cable Centre Private Limited is operating TV cable network and providing TV services in part of Chirala town. It appears that the cable network in Chirala is laid on the electric poles of transmission corporation of Andhra Pradesh (AP TRANSCO) as is done in all other places by other cable TV network operators. The petitioner runs its cable network on 652 electric poles and also obtained licence from Chirala municipality by paying Rs.3,000/- per annum. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (SPDCL) was collecting a lumpsum amount of Rs.100/- per pole used for drawing the cable and recurring charges of Rs.2/- per month per kilometer. The petitioner paid the same without demur. He allegedly obtained permission from SPDCL before drawing the cable TV network on 652 electric poles in Chirala. AP TRANSCO issued T.O.O.Ms.(OP) No.12, dated 09.04.2001 whereunder the Chairman and Managing Director informed that AP TRANSCO approved the following rates for collecting one time ﬁxed charges and recurring monthly charges from cable TV operators, who are utilizing AP TRANSCO electric poles. ____________________________________________________________ S.No. Particulars One time Monthly recurring Fixed charges Revenue_____ Rs. Rs. 1. In Twice Cities of 100/Pole 20/Pole Hyderabad and Secunderabad 2. Municipalities & Towns 50/Pole 15/Pole 3. All others 30/Pole 10/Pole ____________________________________________________________ As a consequence thereto, third respondent addressed letter dated 15.12.2001 to the petitioner requesting to pay an amount of Rs.37,130-00 towards monthly rental charges for utilizing 652 poles in Chirala. The petitioner was also informed that if the amount is not paid within seven days, the service connection would be disconnected. In this writ petition, the petitioner assails AP TRANSCO oﬃce order dated 09.04.2001 and letter of third respondent dated 15.12.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders do not specify the basis for ﬁxing the rates, that the demand made is not by any agreement between the petitioner and AP TRANSCO/ SPDCL, that the impugned TOO has no legislative sanction and that in any event for nonpayment of network charges the service connection of the petitioner cannot be disconnected which is a separate issue altogether. Per contra, learned standing counsel for AP SPDCL placed reliance on Sections 41 and 51 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act, for brevity) and submits that the legislative sanction subject to informing Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) has been provided in these two provisions and therefore, on that scope interference is not called for. Secondly he submits that the petitioner never questioned authority of AP TRANSCO imposing such charges and indeed admittedly he paid amounts after obtaining permission 1994. Therefore, grievance of the petitioner with regard to enhancement of rates is beyond purview of this writ petition. The submission that AP TRANSCO or SPDCL have no legislative sanction is misconceived. Section 41 of the Act enables the transmission licensee engaged in any business for optimum utilization of its assets. Similarly Section 51 of the Act enables a distribution company/licensee to utilize its assets by engaging in any other business. Providing facility of drawing/laying cable TV network from electric poles subject to certain safeguards is certainly a business activity to utilize the assets to optimum level. It is brought to the notice of this Court that AP TRANSCO has approached APERC with regard to clarifications. Secondly as seen from the impugned TOO one time charges of Rs.100/- per pole has been reduced to Rs.50/- for municipality though monthly recurring charges per pole have been raised to Rs.15/- per pole. This cannot be treated as arbitrary. Earlier the respondents were collecting Rs.2/- per pole a month. Doing away with that method of calculation, a lumpsum amount of Rs.15/- as recurring charge is laid down which in the opinion of this Court is not arbitrary. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner, if any, on this aspect, is misconceived. Insofar threat of disconnection is concerned, this Court only observes that subject matter of disconnection pointed out in the impugned letter/order passed by third respondent is not one which falls under Section 56 of the Act and therefore, third respondent cannot take any coercive action against the petitioner though it is always open to them to remove the cable network after giving notice to the petitioner. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 15th September, 2008 GHN To 1 The Managing Director, Suthern Power Distribution Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd, TIRUPATHI. 2 The Superintendent Engineer, Operation Divison, Southern Power Distribution Corporation of A.P. Limited, ONGOLE. 3 The Divisional Engineer (Operation), Southern Power Distribution Corporation of A.P. Limited, ONGOLE. 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ANURADHA}