Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd. v State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH** ## **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/26TH SRAVANA, 1937** **WA.No. 1815 of 2015 () IN WP(C).13722/2015** **-------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13722/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 04-08-2015** **APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS:** **------------------------------------------------** **KERALA COMMUNICATORS CABLE LTD REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR A.R.HARIDAS KERALA COMMUNICATIONS CABLE LTD.28/401 GIRI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI -682 020.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------------------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT POWER DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** ## **2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD** **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION)KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.** ## **3. CHIEF ENGINEER (DISTRIBUTION)** - **KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTDVAIDYUTHI BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.** ## **4. M/S.RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LTD** - **REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR/AUTHORISED OFFICER RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. MARKET CHAMBERSIV NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400021, INDIA.** ## **5. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD** **REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGERTELECOM BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.KERALA TELECOM CIRCLE PMG JUNCTION, KERALA CIRCLE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.** **R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE R5 BY SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL R2 BY SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-08-2015, ALONG WITH W.A.1796/2015. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **avk** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.** **-------------------------------------W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015** **-------------------------------------** Dated this the 17[th] day of August, 2015 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J.** Interference declined by the learned single Judge with regard to the challenge raised by the writ petitioners against Ext.P7 G.O.(Ms.)No.5/15/PD dated 30.1.2015, whereby the 4[th] respondent has been permitted to draw Aerial OFC cables, making use of the poles installed by the Electricity Board, is under challenge in these appeals. The main ground of challenge is that there is no transperancy in the proceedings; no rules or regulations have been framed for granting sanction and further that the rights and interest of the writ petitioners have been adversely affected in more than one way. Pleadings and proceedings are referred to as given in W.A.No.1796/2015, except where it is referred to seperately. 2. The writ appeal 1796/2015 arises from the common judgment in respect of W.P.(C).No.4748/2015, whereas the other appeal is in respect of W.P.(C).No.13722/2015. The former writ petition was filed by an association of Cable TV operators and some individuals who are running the show. The _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015_ _2_ writ petition No.13722/2015 was filed by a Company incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act of 1956 and the shareholders of the Company, who are stated as the members of the Association in W.P.(C). No.4748/2015. 3. Coming to the sequence of events, it is revealed from the proceedings that the 4[th] respondent herein, in their attempt to connect the towers for providing necessary infrastructure in the field of **Mobile services** , made a request before the Electricity Board to permit them to make use of the poles belonging to the Board for drawing the Aerial OFC cables. As a matter of fact, the Board is having nearly 60,00,000 poles and the request is only to make use of 12,000 poles coming within a span of 500 kms. The necessity to draw such Aerial OFC cable is because of the need of the hour, so as to provide ecessary infrastructure, in terms of the license issued by the Ministry,in a time bound manner. As a matter of fact, the line has to be drawn as 'underground cable', but because of various constraints including the lesser width of the road and such other adverse circumstances, the 4[th] respondent Company could not lay underground cables in some areas, where the line has to be drawn connecting the towers by providing aerial _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015_ _3_ cables, which formed the basis for the request. 4. Pursuant to the request, the matter was considered by the KSEB, who was already providing such permission/sanction to the Cable TV operators in the State of Kerala permitting them to draw cables making use of the poles belonging to the KSEB, on the basis of the specified terms and subject to satisfaction of the pole rentals. Since the request made by the 4[th] respondent was stated as the first of its kind in the field of 'mobile services', the matter was caused to be referred to the Government for consideration and appropriate instructions. Various rounds of discussions have taken place and after considering the matter, the Government found that, maximum competitive rates should be procured from the 4[th] respondent and further that their claim to provide the right to draw cables on 'exclusive basis' could not be acceded to. In the said circumstance, specific conditions were stipulated by the Government, holding that the arrangement could only be as a temperory measure, initially for a period of 5 years and further that, it will only be on 'non- exclusive basis'. It was accordingly, that Ext.P7 order was issued on 30.1.2015 enabling the 4[th] respondent to have the cables drawn through the poles belonging to the KSEB. _4_ _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015_ 5. On coming across the proceedings as above, the petitioners(Cable TV operators Association and other members) in W.P.(C).No.4748/2015 approached this Court by filing the writ petition, challenging the course of proceedings as above. It is stated that an interim order of 'status quo' was ordered initially, which was subsequently vacated. The above petitioners preferred a writ appeal against the said order, where interference was declined and the writ petition itself was ordered to be finalized. It is stated that 'status quo' for two weeks was ordered by the Bench, on 6.3.2015. Pursuant to finalization of writ appeal, the matter was considered by the learned single Judge along with the other petition which came to be filed in the meanwhile by the Company as mentioned above. The case of the Company in W.P.(C).No. 13722/2015 was that, they had obtained all the requisite licenses particularly the clearance issued by the Ministry by way of Ext.P10 and the Unified License as borne by Ext.P11(produced in the former case). By virtue of the said licences; it was contended that they were also in a position to provide similar service as in the case of the 4[th] respondent in the other case and this being the position, the facility extented to the 4[th] respondent, that too, without considering the claim mooted by _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015_ _5_ the petitioner in the other case, was liable to be intercepted. The Company also contended that they had made a similar request (as made by the 4[th] respondent) in the form of Ext.P9 (which is the same as Ext.P15 in the former case) and the same was preferred as early as in the year 2013, despite which the same was never considered by the authorities of the Board. It was without any further action, with reference to the said application, that the matter was caused to be finalized by the Board reference to the order passed by the Government vide Ext.P7, which in turn was sought to be intercepted by filing the writ petition. 6. The respondent Board filed a counter affidavit referring to the actual facts and circumstances, also pointing out that there was absolutely no basis in the apprehention expressed from the part of the writ petitioners and further that the proceedings pursued by the Board and also by the Government were quite transperant in all respects. No couter affidavit was filed from the part of the Government. After hearing both the sides, the learned single Judge passed a common judgment, whereby it was specifically observed that there was absolutely no pith or substance in the contentions raised from the part of the petitioners. The nature of service _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015 6_ which was sought to be pursued and provided by the 4[th] respondent was in respect of the 'Mobile services' with regard to which there was no connection for the writ petitioners, who were only having the 'CTV' connection. Admittedly, the writ petitioners were having no 4G licence or enabling sanction. The learned Judge also observed that the cause of action if at all, any, would have arisen in the case of the writ petitioners, only if a similar application was preferred by them before the authorities concerned to have permission to draw the line and if only if it was considered and rejected by the Board or the Government, as the case may be. It was accordingly that interereference was declined and the writ petitions were dismissed as per the common judgment, which is now sought to be challenged by filing these two appeals. 7. Heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Sri.Gopi Krishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the 4[th] respondent,Sri.Jaice Jacob, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the K.S.E.B and Sri.Joseph George, the senior Government Pleader appearing for the State. 8. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015 7_ notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sanction came to be granted in favour of the 4[th] respondent, merely on the basis of the request to enable them to draw the OFC cable through the poles belonging to the Electricity Board. Some figures have also been worked out with regard to the pole rentals that are to be satisfied by the 4[th] respondent. However, this has been done without the knowledge of anybody else. In other words, no notification was ever issued by paper publication or otherwise, informing all concerned as to the invitation to participate in the bid after arranging a level playing field. The rights and interests of the writ petitioners and such other similarly situated parties are stated as quite adversely affected. There may be so many other persons/establishments/institutions who are having similar licences like that of the 4[th] respondent, including the BSNL and such other parties in the private sector, but nobody else has been given the benefit as provided in Ext.P7. It was very much obligatory for the Board and the Government to have stipulated reasonable norms by framing rules or guidelines, as to the allocation of poles for drawing '4 G cables' and in the absence of any such rules, it was not at all proper to have upheld Ext.P7 repelling the contentions raised _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015_ _8_ by the writ petitioners. Reliance is also sought to be placed on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in _**Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489,**_ which has been followed in the recent ruling rendered by the Apex Court in _**2015 (1) SCC 558 City Industrial Development Corporation v. Popcorn Entertainment Corporation**_ . Assertion is made with reference to paragraph 37,38,39,42 and 49 in support of the contentions raised by the appellants. The crux of the submission is that, the course pursued by the Board and the Government is something like 'first come, first served' basis, which principle is bad in all respects and has been deprecated by the Apex Court on many an occasion. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent submits that the writ petitions themselves were not maintainable, for the plain reason that there was absolutely no cause of action for the writ petitioners to have approached this Court. There is an ocean of difference between the nature of operations of the 4[th] respondent and that of the writ petitions, in so far as the 4[th] respondent is a **'Mobile service' provider** and that the request made before the authorities was only to permit the 4[th] respondent to draw Aerial OFC cables throgh the _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015 9_ electric poles as a 'stop - gap' arrangement till the cables at the relevant spot/area were drawn by laying underground cables. The 'need of the hour' was of paramount importance, so as to be in tune with the terms of licence issued by the Government of India and it was in the said circumstance, that the hurdles by virtue of the topographical limitations were sought to be crossed by drawing the cable at the identified locations by way of Aerial OFC cable, through the electric poles. The request was considered by the Board and by the Government and only after metriculous analysis of the relevant facts and circumstances, that sanction was given as per Ext.P7, which is not assailable under any circumstance, submits the learned counsel. It is also pointed out the writ petitioners/appellants admittedly do not have any licence or sanction to provide '4G services' and they, in fact, had not participated in the 'spectrum auction'; without which they could not have provided any such service. The assertion made by the appellants/petititoners in the proceedings to the contrary, stating that they are also having the requisite licences and that they can also provide exactly similar service as sought to be rendered by the 4[th] respondent, is stated as far from the track of truth. The learned Counsel further points out that _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015_ _10_ there is absolutely no basis for the reliance sought to be placed on Ext.P15 in W.P.(C).No.4748/2015 (which is same as Ext.P9 in the other case) as to the request stated as made by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.13722/2015 seeking for the sanction of the Board to make use of the poles belonging to the Board. Evidently, the said request was with reference to the **'Extra High Tension lines'** belonging to the Board and not to draw the cables through the ordinary poles installed by the Board for drawing the electric lines along the road. The purpose of sanction sought for as per the said request substantially varies and as such, the writ petitioners cannot be heard to say that they had already preferred an application before the Board, which was left unattented to. This is more so, when, as per the stand revealed by the Board, no permission could be given to anybody to draw cables making use of the poles make use of the poles through which 'EHT lines' have been drawn in view of the safety, security and such other reasons. 10. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the rate towards the pole rentals, fixed by the Board in the Urban/SubUrban areas, was Rs.311/- per pole; whereas in rural areas, it was Rs.155/-. By virtue of the stipulation given by the _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015 11_ Government in Ext.P7, negotiations were made with the 4[th] respondent, as a result of which, the rate was enhanced and they offered the rate of Rs.360.02 per pole for urban areas and Rs.180.01 per pole in rural areas. The total number of poles sought to be made use of was nearly 12,000 and the pole rental was to sustain increase by 5% every year. It was also stipulated that the entire pole rental for a period of 5 years had to be given in advance and accordingly, the said condition was also satisfied by the 4[th] respondent by effecting a deposit of nearly Rs.2.5 Crores. Absolutely no loss has been caused to the revenue, either to the Government or to the Electricity Board and as such, the contentions raised by the writ petitioners to the contrary are devoid of any merit of bonafides. The learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board submits, that as far as the writ petitioners are concerned, (who have already given the sanction to draw the line making use of the poles belonging to the Electricity Board for providing the CTV network), are satisfying only a pole rental of Rs.250/- per pole, per year, which is much on the lower side. Still, the Board has accomodated persons like the petitioners, entering into a specific agreement as to the rights and liabilities. The learned Counsel also points out that no exclusive right has been given _12_ _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015_ to the 4[th] respondent in any manner and the rights of the Board and the Government have been well protected in all respects. 11. The learned senior Government Pleader appearing for the 1[st] respondent submits that the request/proposal submitted by the 4[th] respondent was considered vertically and horizontally by the Government and it was much after proper application of the mind that a stipulation was made that effort shall be taken to ensure that maximum revenue was generated that the sanction/relief extended to the party concerned shall never be exclusive and further that the rights and liberties of the Board shall always be kept open. Reference is also made to Clause 5(2) of Ext.P7, whereby it has been stipulated that, if at all it was found that any higher rate was being offered in any other state, the said rate was liable to be satisfied by the 4[th] respondent. 11. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the request made by the 4[th] respondent was with reference to the nature of activity confining the same for providing ' **Mobile service** ' based on the requisite licence and infrastructure which they were having in this regard. The request made by the 4[th] respondent was of course considered by the Board of _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015 13_ Directors in their meeting held on 16.8.2014 as discernible from Ext.P7. The said request was for 'exclusive facility' but the Board found that the matter required consideration by the Government as well, for making a policy decision. The Government, in turn, considered the various facts and figures as discussed in Ext.P7 itself and it was thereafter, that the sanction was given; crux of which as contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 are extracted below:- _“5. The following decisions were taken in the meeting._ _(i) M/s.Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. Has to remit rentals for the current year along with the same for the next four years in advance (I.E. FROM 2014-15 TO 2018-19) at Rs.1800.10 per pole for (5 years) in urban/semi urban areas and Rs.900.05/- per pole (for 5 years) in rural areas. They have to furnish the list of required quantity of poles._ _(ii) In case higher rates for pole rentals are levied in any other states. The same rates shall be automatically applicable in KSEBL also._ _6. Considering the request of the Secretary (Administration) KSEB Ltd, in his letter, read as fourth paper above, for issuing necessary orders for further course of action, Government are pleased to order that Kerala State Electricity Board Limited shall accord permission ot M/s.Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd, drawing Aerial Optical Fibre Cable through the distribution poles of KSEB Ltd, only for the limited pupose of providing 4 G services, by_ _14_ _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015_ _collecting rent at the rate decided through negotiation, for a period limited to a maximum of 5 years as a purely temperory measure and not to be extended further under any circumstances, on a non - exclusive basis, subject to proposed terms and conditions.”_ 13. The writ petitioners/appellants have got a contention that no publicity was ever made; no notification was given and nobody else was given an opportunity as in the case of 4[th] respondent before giving Ext.P7 sanction. But, in what way prejudice has been caused to the petitioners/appellants is not made out, either in the writ petition or in the appeal. This aspect was metriculously considered and analysed by the learned single Judge, who observed that the cause of action, if at all any, would have arisen only if a similar request was made by the writ petitioners and if the same was rejected by the Board or the Government for some or other reason, which has not happened. The petitioners/appellants have not preferred any application or request similar to the request made by the 4[th] respondent herein, obviously for the reason that they do not have any '4 G' facility as admitted by the learned Consel for the appellant. The apprehension, if at all any, might be or could be with reference to the 'internet _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015 15_ facility', which possibly could be done by the petitioners/appellants; but so far as the 4[th] respondent is concerned, they are not at all eager to have the said service, as their field of operation is entirely different, being in connection with the ' **Mobile phones** '. It is also revealed that the 4[th] respondent is not providing any connection to any buidlings, residencial or otherwise, in connection with the service, essentially for the reason that, the nature of service being rendered by them is 'wireless'. The OFC cable is only to connect the different towers and the various installations and not to be taken to the residences of the beneficiaries; unlike the service being extended by the petitioners/appellants who are running CTV network. 14. Coming to the judgments sought to be relied on by the petitioners/appellants, it is true that there has to be transperancy in all respects; which involves public money/property and there cannot be any dispute in this regard. The basic question to be considered is whether there is any arbitrary exercise of power or whether the proceedings have been finalized by the Board/Government in a transparent manner without prejudice to anybody who is having similar claim. As borne by Ext.P7, the pleadings and proceedings, it is _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015_ _16_ seen that the Government has given clearance to the Electricity Board for permitting the poles belonging to the Board to be used by the 4[th] respondent for drawing the OFC cables, subject to specific terms, as a temperory measure, for a period of 5 years and that the said right shall be on 'non-exclusive basis' subject to generating maximum revenue. The 'ordinary rate' which is implemented by the Board for permitting the cable TV operators to draw the cables stands much above the rate which is now being satisfied by the persons like the petitioners herein. The interest of the revenue is seen well protected in all respects. If any other person or institution is available to offer a better rate, is a different matter and that will be germane, only if 'exclusive right' is provided to the 4[th] respondent, which is not the position in the instant case. There is no case for the respondent Board or the Government that the application or request to be made by other interested persons will not be considered under any circumstance. It is always open for the parties like the petitioners/appellants to make applications, if at all they are interested to draw the OFC cable, subject to satisfaction of similar or better terms as given in the case of the 4[th] respondent herein. The said right has always been left open as observed by the learned single Judge while passing the _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015_ _17_ judment and this being the position, it cannot be said that any prejudice or adverse circumstances have been resulted by virtue of the sanction already given to the 4[th] respondent vide Ext.P7. 15. The case which was considered by the Apex Court in _**2015 (1) SCC 558 City Industrial Development Corporation v. Popcorn Entertainment Corporation**_ (relied on by the appellants) was with regard to allotment of three parts of development land (SIDCO) in favour of one person applying in different capacities. The necessity to maintain transperancy and granting of opportunity to all other similarly situated persons was highlighted by the Apex Court in the said decision. It is observed in paragraph 49 of the said judgment that the disposal of the Government land by adopting a discriminatory and arbitrary method shall always be avoided and it should be done in a fair and equitable manner as allotment in favourism and napotism influences the exercise of discretion. The Apex Court also observed that, even if a rule or regulation prescribes mode of allotment by entertaining individual application or by tenders or competitive bidding, the rule of law requires publicity to be given, before such allotment is made and that the authorities concerned shall not adopt a pick and chose method. _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015_ _18_ 16. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court to the given facts and circumstance of the case, it is seen that the proceedings pursued by the Board and the sanction given by the Government as per Ext.P7 were never behind the curtain. The request made by the 4[th] respondent was placed before the Board of Directors who considered the same in the light of the policy decision taken by the Government. The consideration made by the Government as reflected from Ext.P7 reveals that the Government was firm enough to see that the right was never to be given on an 'exclusive basis' and further that maximum revenue was to be procurred in all respects. The time for granting the permission/license was also restricted to the period as specified therein. The pleadings and proceedings do not contain any material to infer that, if any application is filed by similarly situated persons including the writ petitioners, the same will not be considered or that the benefit will not be extended to anybody else. The right in this regard has already been left open by the learned single Judge. The said finding has not been subjected to challenge from the part of the Board or the Government; obviously for the reason that they do not have any such case and as put forth by learned Standing Counsel for the Board in black and white terms, they are ready to consider the application, if at all the petitioners are _19_ _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015_ interested in making a request for drawing the 'OFC cables' making use of the poles belonging to the Board, in accordance with law. 17. Coming to the first case, i.e, W.A.No.1796 of 2015, it is to be noted that the appellants are having operation only with regard to the Cable TV network and they are in no way connected with providing any service in relation to the **Mobile phones** . They do not have any claim that they are having the requisite licences issued by the authorities concerned including the Ministry. The claim in this regard is mooted only by the petiitioner/appellant in the other case i.e W.A.No.1815 of 2015. Ext.P10 and P11 produced in the former case, are in the name of the concerned Company and not in the name of the petitioners/appellants in the said case. The nature of challenge raised by the petitioners/appellants for the said reason appears to be of no connection with the rights of the petitioners/applicants. As such, this Court is of the view that the petitioners/appellants in W.P.(C).No.4748 of 2015/W.A.1796 of 2015 do not have any 'locus standi' to file the writ petition/appeal. In other words, it virtually amounts to **'a public interest litigation in disguise',** which is not liable to be entertained by this Court. This is more so, since, all the members of the petitioner association in W.P.(C).No.4748 of _20_ _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015_ 2015 are stated as the shareholders of the Company, who has filed the other writ petition/appeal (W.P.(C).No.13722 of 2015/W.A.No.1815 of 2015). 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants pointed out that, because of the course pursued by the Electricity Board/Government, many other entities who are having the requisite licences, were not let known, nor could they participate in any proceeding to stake their claim for drawing 'OFC' cables making use of the poles belonging to the Electricity Board; for of want of publication and the absence of rules/guidelines. The amount quoted by the 4[th] respondent has been accepted, which shows that there is no competition at all. This Court does not find much weight in the said contention, obviously for the reason that the question of competition comes only when there is an intention to give the right in an 'exclusive manner', which is not the position in the instant case. Eventhough the request made by the 4[th] respondent was to give exclusive right, it was not acceeded to and the Government has made it clear in Ext.P7 G.O that, it shall only be on 'non-exclusive basis'. That apart, the sanction given to the 4[th] respondent does not bar the way of any other similarly situated person/establishment in seeking for sanction to permit them as well, to draw 'OFC cable' making use of the poles _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015 21_ belonging to the Electricity Board, which could be subject to satisfaction of the terms as agreed to in the case of the 4[th] respondent. According to the respondent Board and the Government, if the petitioners are interested, it is always open for them to make application, which will be considered in accordance with law and also in the light of Ext.P7; however, adding that Ext.P15 in W.A.No.1796 of 2015 (Ext.P9 in the other case) stands on a different footing and for a different purpose, as the request made by the petitioner/appellant Company therein is only to make use of the poles through which 'Extra High Tension' line has been drawn by the Board, which cannot be permitted for various reasons and no such benefit is extended to the 4[th] respondent as well. 19. Again, coming back to the verdict passed by the Apex Court in _**2015 (1) SCC 558 (cited supra),**_ as mentioned already, it was a case involving sale of the property belonging to the Government/public sector. The rigour of the observation made by the Supreme Court in the said case, as such, may not be applicable to the case in hand, in so far as the proceedings pursued by the Board and the Government cannot but be said as transparent, protecting the interest of the revenue and resticting the rights to be given to the 4[th] respondent denying to grant any 'exclusive right',thus enabling _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015_ _22_ the Board/Government to consider other similar applications as well, if at all, to be filed by other interested parties. That apart, unlike the case of a land deal, it is only a 'licence' to be given by the Board, to permit the beneficiary to draw OFC cables, making use of the poles belonging to the Electricity Board. No transfer of property is involved, unlike the case dealt with by the Supreme Court. In a case involving transfer of land, absolute rights are parted for ever and as such, more care and caution with publicity are warranted; whereas in the instant case, it is only a matter of 'licence', that too, without giving any exclusive right to the 4[th] respondent, but for giving the benefit only to a limited extent on specific terms, subject to satisfaction of the revenue as already fixed. This facilitates other similar applications, if any, to be preferred by the petitioner/appellants or other interested persons, if they so desire. As such, the verdict passed by the Supreme Court as mentioned above, does not come to the rescue of the petitioners/appellant in any manner. 20. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that the idea and understanding of the petitioners/appellants with regard to the apprehension expressed as to the adverse consequences that might be resulted, is clearly wrong and misconceived. The appeals are devoid of any merit, none of the _23_ _W.A.Nos.1815 & 1796 of 2015_ grounds raised in support could be held sustainable. Interference is declined. Both the appeals are dismissed accordingly. It is however for the Government and authorities of the Board to frame guidelines as to the issue involved, to have clarity and transparency, so as to avoid chances for any future litigation. ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** **BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE** //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE avk