AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
The Petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the first Respondent/The Principal Advisor, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, to supply Decoder Boxes of SUNTV Network, to the Petitioner on payment of necessary charges, as applicable under the Rules in accordance with law.
This writ is classic example of misuse of process of this Court, as on an earlier occasion, the Petitioner had approached this Court, by filing W.P.(MD) No. 1074 of 2008, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No. 1, to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 17.01.2008, and pass orders on merits, in accordance with law.
The writ petition was disposed of by this Court, by passing the following order:
Admit. Mr. K. Anand Kumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel takes notice for the first Respondent. With consent of the Learned Counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Since the writ petition is being disposed of with a direction, notice for the second Respondent is dispensed with.
The Petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition seeking the relief of directing the first respondent herein to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 17.01.2008 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the said representation has not so far been disposed of by the first Respondent.
Mr. K. Anand Kumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel fairly submitted that if six weeks time is given, the representation of the Petitioner dated 17.01.2008 will be disposed of.
Considering the submissions made by the Learned Counsel on either side, the first Respondent is hereby directed to consider the Petitioners representation dated 17.01.2008 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.
In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the matter was taken up by the Telecom Authority of India, wherein it was recorded as under:
Considering the fact that no representation dated 07.01.2008 has either been received from you or pending with the Respondent No. 1 i.e., the Principal Advisor, TRAI, the representation referred to in paragraph 5 of the order dated 08.02.2008 of the Hon''ble High Court appears to be the representation dated 17.01.2008 submitted by you, as referred to in paragraph 2 of the order dated 08.02.2008. The Principal Advisor (B&CS), who is the first Respondent in the writ petition, has accordingly considered your "representation" dated 17.01.2008 and has disposed of the same as per details mentioned in the preceding paragraph 4 of this letter. Thus, this letter disposes of your representation dated 17.01.2008 in terms of orders dated 08.02.2008 passed by the Hon''ble Madurai Bench of Hon''ble High Court of Madras in the writ petition filed by you before that Hon''ble Court (W.P.(MD) No. 1074 of 2008).
The order shows, that the Petitioner had not approached this Court with clean hands, as he was guilty of misstatement, about filing of representation.
The Petitioner, now has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a direction, to the second Respondent, to issue Decoder Boxes of SUN TV Network, on payment of necessary charges.
No Rule/Regulation or legal obligation is shown, under which the Respondents can be said to be under the statutory obligation, to supply Decoder boxes of SUN TV network to the Petitioner, on payment, to seek a writ in the nature of Mandamus.
This writ petition is nothing, but, misuse of process of this Court. The Petitioner seems to be interested in some type of contract, with the second Respondent or SUN TV. It is not disclosed, if any, contract exist there between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2, nor any statutory provision of law is shown, under which the relief can be granted to the Petitioner.
The writ petition, being totally misconceived, is ordered to be dismissed.
No costs.