IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 13864 of 2004 Between: M/s. Akash Cable Net work Pvt Ltd., Nellore, represented by its Manager, Sri Akmal Hussainy, S/o.Sri Syed Hussainy, R/o. Nellore, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The District Collector, Nellore. 2.The Joint Collector, Collectorate, Nellore. 3.Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore. 4.Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur. 5.Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali 6.Chatta Mallikarjuna Rao, Gemini & Teja Distributor, Akash Net Work, Shop No. F.II, Saileela Complex, Beside Baseta Cakes, Trunk Road, Nellore. 7.Sri Raja Rajeshwari Channel, Radhakrishna Towers, Opp. to DSR, Government Hqs. Hospital, Dargamitta, Nellore. 8.Shivabhi Channel, Gudur, represented by Sri C.Ashok Kumar, S/o. Janaki Ramaiah, R/o. 10/152 Z.P. High School Road, Gudur, Nellore Dist. 9.Vigeneswara Cable Net work, Kavali, Represented by Sri M. Ramakrishna Rao, S/o.Guru Murthy, D.No.2-8-67-A, Opp. to Munsiff Court, Kavali, Nellore District. .....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 issue a Writ, order or direction particularly writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 not to interfere with the cable net work business of petitioner in Nellore Division by declaring the order passed in Rc.C1(M)/1128/2004 dt.29.7.2004 of the Collector and District Magistrate, Nellore, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.N.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6. None appeared Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 to 9:Kumbham Srinivasa Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.13864 OF 2004 ORDER: The petitioner has allegedly entered into contract with sixth respondent for permission for Gemeni and Teja Pay Channel decoders and sim cards in Nellore, Gudur and Kovvur Towns. Be it noted, the sixth respondent allegedly had an agreement with Gemeni and Teja Channels for distribution of decoders and sim cards in Nellore Division. It appears, some of the Cable TV Operators in Nalgonda, Nellore and Krishna Districts filed a Writ Petition before this Court being W.P.No.8693 of 2004 complaining that Gemini and Teja Distributors (respondents 6 to 12 therein) including sixth respondent herein, are not transmitting Gemini and Teja Channels and that their business is adversely affected. They also alleged that the District Collector is not taking any action on their application made complaining that the Distributors are not transmitting two channels to them. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 15.6.2004 directing the concerned District Collectors to take necessary action in accordance with Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 (for short, the Act). Thereafter, the District Collector, Nellore, passed orders on 29.7.2004, purporting to exercise powers under Section 20 of the Act and directed Gemini and Teja Channel Distributors to issue decoders on payment basis to the Cable TV Operators of RR Channel, Nellore. No direction was given to petitioner herein. However, apprehending that the contract between petitioner and sixth respondent cannot be given full effect, and further apprehending that the contract would be frustrated if the sixth respondent is directed to give Gemini and Teja Channels to other Cable TV Operators, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus invalidating the proceedings of the District Collector, dt.29.7.2004. It is not the case of the petitioner that the District Collector directed the petitioner not to distribute the channels to Cable TV operators. If the petitioner apprehends that his rights under the contract with the sixth respondent would be frustrated and may result in breach of terms of contracts, it is always open to the petitioner to approach Civil Court for decree for specific performance of the agreement between petitioner and sixth respondent. In this Writ Petition indirectly he cannot prevent the enforcement of the orders passed by the District Collector. Curiously, the sixth respondent does not challenge the orders of the District Collector. Therefore, applying the principle of Jus tertii, this Writ petition must be held not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. If so advised, petitioner may seek relief by invoking common law remedy by filing a suit. The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is dismissed. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 6.8.2004 bnr ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.The District Collector, Nellore District, Nellore. 2.The Joint Collector, Collectorate, Nellore. 3.Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore. 4.Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, Nellore District.. 5.Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore District. 6.2 CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court Bldgs., Hyderabad (O.U.T) 7.2CD copies