IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 29559 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CABLE TV OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JERALD T.J., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER DISTRIBUTION CENTRAL, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION OFFICE, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION OFFICE, MATTANCHERY. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION OFFICE, KANNAMALI. * ADDL.R6 ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. KARIMPANAL ARCADE, EAST FORT, TRIVANDRUM. REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE(LEGAL) MR.ALEX JOSE PAIKADA (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R6 VIDE ORDER DT 18.12.08 IN IA.16333/08) ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 5 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR ADDL.R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29559 OF 2008 R ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an association of operators of cable TV network. It is stated that for the purpose of transmitting satellite television signals to the customers, television cables are used. They have drawn mainly through the electric poles belonging to the KSEB. There is no dispute that the lines were drawn without permission. Ext.P1 is an order of the Board dated 29.8.2008 wherein it is, inter alia, stated that having considered the matter in detail, sanction is accorded to:- (i) regularize all unauthorized Cable TV connections with effect from the date of payment of 3 times the floor rate fixed by the Board from the date of unauthorized connection. (ii) The cut-off date for regularizing the unauthorized connection is fixed as 30.9.2008. 2. According to the petitioner association, they were ready to pay the regularization charges. It is pleaded that the cable TV operators had to raise the necessary amount of three WPC.29559/08 : 2 : times the pole rental for getting regularization. But, it is stated that some of the Executive Engineers, like the 3rd respondent, insisted the payment of the amount from the date of registration. They have submitted a representation and seek a direction to regularize the drawing of cables as provided in Ext.P1 by accepting three times the annual pole rental for one year from the cable TV networks which have already applied. A further direction is sought to accept the regularization charges from the cable TV networks which have already applied in accordance with Ext.P1. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed a list of cable TV networks which have filed application before 30.9.2008 but could not regularize the drawing of cables. 3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the additional 6th respondent. They have produced Exts.R6(a) and R6(b) guidelines. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the additional 6th respondent and learned standing counsel for the Board. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the members of the petitioner association as mentioned in WPC.29559/08 : 3 : Ext.P3 list were either prepared to pay the amount before 30.9.2008, the actual amount payable under Ext.P1 before 30.9.2008 or persons who were actually deposited the amount as already mentioned and they are entitled to regularization and the amount has to be paid with reference to the date on which there is unauthorized drawing of line and not the date of registration. 5. Learned counsel for the additional 6th respondent would point out that the date of registration and the date of unauthorized drawing of line must be close to each other. If the petitioners are given any benefit not contemplated in Ext.P1, the 6th respondent should also get the benefit as it has paid as per the guidelines, he submits. It is also submitted that the line has been drawn in some cases over the post alloted to the 6th respondent illegally and action has not been taken. Learned standing counsel for the Board would submit that under Ext.P1 order what is contemplated is that the line should be regularized by actually paying amounts before 30.9.2008. Interpretation of Ext.P1 Board order is what is in question. 6. Ext.P1 order makes it clear that the sanction is given WPC.29559/08 : 4 : for regularizing unauthorized cable TV connections from the date of payment of three times the floor rate fixed from the date of unauthorized connection. Therefore, what is relevant is the date of unauthorized connection but regularization has to be done by 30.9.2008 as that is the cut-off date. The date of registration and the date of unauthorized connection can be different. It is for the concerned officer to look into the question as to when is the actual date of unauthorized connection. It is possible also that the unauthorized connection comes near to the date on which the registration is granted. That is the exact date which has to be gone into by the officer. A further question is whether the persons included in Ext.P3 list have filed applications and paid the amount payable in terms of Ext.P1 order or whether they were ready to pay the amount and whether there is refusal to accept the payment citing the reason that the amount is to be calculated with reference to the date of registration, when the date of registration and the actual date of unauthorized connection are different. These are matters for the authority to consider. In such circumstances, writ petition is disposed of directing WPC.29559/08 : 5 : the concerned Executive Engineers, namely respondents 3 to 5, to look into the matter and take a decision thereon in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners or their representatives shall be present before the concerned Executive Engineers, namely respondents 3 to 5, on 9.2.2009 and the respondents will proceed to consider and take a decision in accordance with law as aforesaid within one month thereafter. It is open to the additional 6th respondent to represent its grievance before the appropriate authority. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE