AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sophy Thomas, J.
This is an intra court appeal under Section 5 of the High Courts Act, 1958, at the instance of the petitioner in WP(C)No.19438 of 2022, challenging the interim order of stay granted by the learned Single Judge, on condition to deposit Rs.2,50,000/-.
The appellant filed WP(C) No.19438 of 2022 seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing Ext.P16 demand notice dated 12.04.2022 issued by the 6th respondent-Deputy Tahsildar. An interim relief also was sought to stay Ext.P16 demand notice dated 12.04.2022, whereby the appellant is required to pay an amount of Rs.7,55,791/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the Principal amount of Rs.3,57,318/-from 11.12.2012.
As per the impugned order, learned Single Judge allowed his prayer for interim stay, subject to the condition that he shall deposit an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- within a period of one month. Aggrieved by the condition to deposit an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, the writ petitioner preferred this appeal.
The case of the appellant is that, he was the sole proprietor of Malabar Net Cable Vision, a Cable TV Network in Melady, Payyoli and he he had entered into an agreement with the KSEB on 24.01.2008 for drawing cables through electric poles of the Board. Subsequently, he transferred the entire right of transmission including the right to draw the cables through the electric poles of the Board, to one Mr.C. Rajan, with notice to the Board. In the year 2010, since there was default in payment of rent, the Board issued notice to Mr.C. Rajan. The Board simultaneously issued notice to the appellant also, and the appellant brought to the notice of the Board that he had transferred the right of transmission along with the right to draw the cables through the electric poles of the Board, to Mr.C. Rajan. The agreement entered into between the appellant and Mr.C. Rajan and connected documents were produced by the appellant before the Board, but the staff of the Board failed to make changes in the records, and that is why notice was issued to the appellant from the Board. Though the agreement between the appellant and the Board expired in the year 2018, the Board continues to issue notice to the appellant and also to Mr.C. Rajan for the selfsame pole rent. The 6th respondent-Deputy Tahsildar issued Ext.P16 notice dated 17.05.2022, intimating revenue recovery, and calling upon the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.7,55,951/-. Then he approached this Court with WP(C) No.19438 of 2022 and obtained the impugned conditional stay order.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for KSEB for respondents 1 to 5 and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 6th respondent.
According to the appellant, he is not liable to pay any amount to the 1st respondent KSEB, and if he is compelled to pay any amount as directed by the learned Single Judge, it will amount to an admission of his liability, which will defeat the very purpose of his writ petition.
Learned Standing Counsel for the Board drew our attention to the fact that Ext.P1 agreement between the appellant and the Board was on 24.01.2008. As per clause 15 of that agreement, the validity of that agreement was for a period of ten years. As per clause 19 of that agreement, the cable TV operator has no right to transfer/sell/assign his right under the licence/sanction issued by the Board to draw Cable to draw Cable TV to any person under any circumstances without prior permission/sanction from the Board. In case the cable TV operator transfers his right under the licence/sanction without the permission of the Board, the Board has the right to revoke/cancel the licence/sanctions issued to the Cable TV operator.
Admittedly, the agreement between the appellant and the Board expired on 23.01.2018. Ext.P3 agreement between the appellant and Mr.C.Rajan was on 19.11.2018, which was much after the expiry of Ext.P1 agreement. Moreover, Ext.P14 letter issued by the 3rd respondent Executive Engineer on 20.12.2021 intimating the RR proceedings proposed against the appellant for the pole rent arrears claimed, is with respect to agreement No.02/07-08 dated 24.01.2008, which is Ext.P1 agreement between the appellant and the Board. Ext.P14 letter further shows that, in the agreement executed between the appellant and Mr.C Rajan, the Board was not a party, and it was executed after the expiry of Ext.P1 agreement. Moreover, as per clause 19 of Ext.P1 agreement, the appellant had no right to transfer/sell/assign his right under the licence/sanction issued by the Board.
Though the demand made in Ext.P16 demand notice in the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the appellant is for an amount of Rs.7,55,791/-, the learned Single Judge granted stay on condition to deposit Rs.2,50,000/- only. We find no reason to interfere with that condition, in this intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the High Courts Act.
In the result, we dismiss this writ appeal, clarifying that any deposit, made by the appellant in compliance of the impugned order shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.