Item No.6
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.140 OF 2021
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. The appellant/writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
10.03.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing
W.P.No.7863 of 2020, questioning the inaction on the part of the
respondents No.1 to 4/authorities in revoking the cable television
license allegedly obtained unauthorisedly, by the private respondent No.5.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellant with a direction issued to the respondent No.2 to examine his representation dated 23.10.2019 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a reasonable period preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. It has also been clarified that before passing an order, an opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the respondent No.5.
3. At the outset, we have requested learned counsel for the appellant to address this court on the maintainability of the present petition particularly, in the light of the fact that the impugned order is innocuous in nature and has only directed the respondent No.2 to W.A.No.140 of 2021 Page 1 of 3 consider the appellant's representation and decide the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.5.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner states that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that the respondent No.2 has failed to exercise the duty cast on him to cancel the license issued in favour of the respondent No.5; that the learned Single Judge should have considered the fact that the respondent No.2 had kept the appellant's application pending and that the court should have appreciated the fact that the respondent No.2 has the power to cancel the license issued, which he has failed to exercise.
5. We may note that this is the last week, before the court closes for the summer vacation and several urgent matters are being filed in the Registry making the staff work till late hours and that too, at a time when the COVID-19 infection is at its peak and night curfew has been imposed. In the absence of any urgency, such a misconceived appeal has been filed by the appellant, which doesn't even deserve to be entertained. Appeals like the present one, burdens the Registry and wastes substantial time of the court that could have been put to better use.
6. On the face of it, the present appeal a patently frivolous one particularly when the order passed by the learned Single Judge is only to direct the respondent No.2 to decide the appellant's pending representation in a time bound manner after a hearing to the respondent No.5.
W.A.No.140 of 2021 Page 2 of 3
7. We see no error in the impugned order, which is upheld. The present appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), to be deposited with the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee within one week from today. Proof of deposit of costs shall be placed by the appellant before the respondent No.2 immediately thereafter. Only after proof of payment of costs is furnished to the respondent No.2, shall he make compliances of the directions issued in the impugned order.
8. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order forthwith to the respondent No.2 for information and compliance.
_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ ______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 29.04.2021 Lur W.A.No.140 of 2021 Page 3 of 3