Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995

    J. Kamatchi Petitioner v. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable Tv Corporation Ltd., Marshals Road, Chennai - 8.

    Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the application dated 27.12.2013 for the grant of License (LCO) under the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 in favour of the petitioner in the light of the recommendations made by the 2nd respondent dated 20.03.2017

    M. Duraiswamy, J.:— The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1 respondent to consider the application dated 27.12.2013 for grant of License (LCO) under the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 in favour of the petitioner in the light of the recommendations made by the 2 respondent dated 20.03.2017

    2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 2 respondent, who is the District Level Officer, conducted spot inspection through his subordinates and got their report. Based on the recommendations of the local cable TV Technical Assistant, the 2 respondent forwarded his recommendations dated 20.03.2017 for grant of license (LCO). Though the recommendations were forwarded after a long delay from the date of the application dated 27.12.2013, the 1 respondent is now holding the same.

    3. Mr. Abdul Saleem, learned counsel taking notice for the respondents submitted that the 1 respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's application and pass orders in accordance with law.

    4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for in the Writ Petition, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 1 respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 27.12.2013 for grant of license (LCO) under the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995, in the light of the recommendations made by the 2 respondent dated 20.03.2017 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

    5. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    J. Kamatchi Petitioner v. The Managing Directo...
    (Apr 24, 2017)