Malothu Govind Naik Govind vs Union Of India And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1407 Tel

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

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.

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