1. In W.P.(C) Nos. 40017/2024, 35892/2019, 29878/2018, 25574/2020, 25201/2021, 29079/2022, 30646/2024 and 38386/2024, the writ petitioners challenge the demand notices issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited and the Thrissur Municipal Corporation, the latter being the licensee and electricity distribution authority within the Thrissur Corporation limits, demanding pole rentals at rates alleged to be exorbitant and inconsistent with the applicable Government Orders and the statutory Right of Way Rules.

2. The details of the said writ petitions are given in the tables below:

                 

                

                

              

                 

               

                 

3. The writ petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 40017/2024, 35892/2019, 29878/2018, 25574/2020, 25201/2021, 29079/2022, 30646/2024 and 38386/2024 are Asianet Satellite Communications Limited, who is a cable TV and wired-internet service provider operating under valid licences issued under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter ‘Telegraph Act’) and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter ‘Cable Television Act’). Their networks are established using electricity distribution poles of the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (hereinafter ‘KSEBL’), under long-standing agreements periodically renewed from 1992 onwards. According to the petitioners, they have always provided cable TV and internet through the same cable and the same network, for which a single pole-rental scheme was consistently followed.

                  3.1. After a mediation settlement in 2011, pole rentals stood fixed at Rs.250 for urban poles and Rs.125 for rural poles, with a 5% annual increase, and this arrangement continued for a decade. The petitioners assert that the State Government subsequently issued a series of binding Government Orders, GO(MS) No. 9/2021/Power dated 26.02.2021, GO(MS) No. 11/2021/Power dated 02.03.2021, and GO(MS) No. 14/2021/Power dated 08.07.2021, fixing uniform pole- rental rates of Rs.300 (urban) and Rs.145 (rural) with 3% annual increase, without any distinction between cable TV and internet services. These Government Orders were fully accepted and adopted by KSEBL through subsequent Board Orders, specifically Board Order dated 13.08.2021. The petitioners submit that, based on these orders and on specific assurances given by the Government, including in meetings chaired by the Hon’ble Chief Minister, particularly in the context of digital-access expansion during the pandemic, they made substantial investments and were assured a 10-year agreement period, which KSEBL also subsequently approved.

                  3.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that, despite this statutory and policy framework, KSEBL has issued a series of exorbitant demands treating the petitioners as though they were mobile telecom providers (2G/3G/4G), applying rates in excess of Rs.550 for urban poles and Rs.280 for rural poles. The petitioners emphatically contend that they do not possess Access Service Licences, do not use spectrum, and do not provide mobile voice/SMS services; hence, the mobile-service pole-rental category has no application to wired-internet providers such as themselves.

                  3.3. The petitioners further rely on the Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016 (hereinafter ‘the 2016 Row Rules’), as amended in 2021 and 2022, which mandate that public authorities, including KSEBL as an “appropriate authority”, can levy only (i) a one-time compensation not exceeding Rs.1000 per kilometre (for over- ground lines), and (ii) recurring charges not exceeding Rs.100 per pole per annum. They submit that these Rules, saved by Section 61 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Telecommunications Act), continue to operate with full statutory force and override any inconsistent administrative orders. According to the petitioners, KSEBL cannot ignore these binding statutory rules and revert to higher rates that contradict both Central law and the State’s own policy.

                  3.4. The petitioners contend that the impugned demand notices are arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to binding Government Orders and Board Orders, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). They submit that the reclassification of their wired- internet service as a “4G service” for the purpose of imposing higher pole-rentals is irrational and engineered solely to raise revenue, undermining the State’s own digital-access policy and jeopardising the economic viability of the petitioners’ operations. They maintain that they have already paid the entire pole-rental legally due under the Government-approved rates, subject to their right to claim the lower rates under the Right of Way Rules. They therefore seek quashing of the impugned demand notices, a declaration of the applicable lawful rates, and a direction to execute renewal agreements at the rates fixed under the GOs/BOs and, after 21.10.2021, at the rates mandated by the Right of Way Rules.

4. In W.P.(C) Nos. 29878/2018, 35892/2019, 25574/2020, 25201/2021, 29079/2022, 30646/2024,        38386/2024,   12680/2024, 44166/2023,    43770/2024, 34810/2025, 45993/2024,        36973/2024, 24281/2025,    10780/2025,   26617/2025, 24825/2025, 28901/2025, 29253/2025,        35490/2025, 39930/2025, 44221/2025 and 46679/2025, the writ petitioners also challenge the demand notices issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited and the Thrissur Municipal Corporation as exorbitant and not in conformity with the applicable Government Orders and the statutory Right of Way Rules.

                  4.1. The details of the said writ petitions are given below in the table:

                  IMAGE

                  IMAGE

                  IMAGE

                  4.2. The writ petitioners in the above batch of cases, who are cable television operators and wired-internet service providers, have raised common legal contentions questioning the authority of the KSEBL and the concerned local authority, acting as licensees under the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter ‘the Electricity Act’), to levy and demand pole rental charges for the use of electricity distribution poles. According to the petitioners, the impugned demands are contrary to the governing statutory framework and binding policy instruments.

                  4.3. The petitioners contend that, in the course of their business, they make use of electricity distribution poles maintained by KSEBL for drawing overhead optical fibre cables through which cable television and wired broadband internet services are provided to subscribers. It is asserted that a single overhead cable is used for transmission of both services, without imposing any additional physical load on the poles. According to the petitioners, despite this uniform mode of usage, the respondents have proceeded to levy exorbitant pole rentals.

                  4.4. The petitioners rely upon the policy decisions of the State Government as contained in G.O.(Ms) No. 14/2021/Power dated 08.07.2021 (hereinafter ‘the 2021 Government Order’), fixing uniform pole rental rates of Rs.300/- per pole per annum in Corporation/Municipal areas and Rs.145/- per pole per annum in Panchayat areas for drawing optical fibre cables through electric poles, and the subsequent adoption and implementation of the said Government Order by KSEBL through Board Order dated 13.08.2021 (heareinafter ‘the Board Order’). They contend that notwithstanding such policy decisions, the Thrissur Corporation has unilaterally imposed substantially higher pole rentals and insisted upon execution of agreements on that basis, which is impermissible.

                  4.5.    It is further contended that the field relating to compensation for use of street furniture for telecommunication infrastructure is now fully governed by the RoW Rules, as consolidated and continued under the Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2024 RoW Rules). According to the petitioners, the said Rules expressly distinguish between telecommunication lines and “small cells” used for mobile networks, and prescribe separate compensation regimes for each. The petitioners assert that their use of electric poles is confined exclusively to laying optical fibre cables, which squarely falls within the category of telecommunication lines and not small cells.

                  4.6.    Placing reliance on Rule 11(8) read with Part III of the Schedule to the 2024 Rules, the petitioners contend that the compensation payable for use of street furniture for telecommunication lines is statutorily capped and that any demand in excess thereof is ultra vires the Rules. It is argued that electricity poles fall within the definition of “street furniture” and that KSEBL is part of the description of an “appropriate authority” under the RoW Rules, rendering it bound by the statutory ceilings prescribed therein.

                  4.7.    The petitioners further submit that the definitions of “telecommunication line” and “overground telegraph infrastructure” under the RoW Rules clearly encompass optical fibre cables strung over electric poles, and that the said Rules also prescribe limits on one-time and recurring charges for such infrastructure. Any levy beyond those limits, according to the petitioners, is in direct violation of the statutory scheme. It is also contended that by virtue of Section 61 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, all rules and orders framed under the Telegraph Act, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the Telecommunications Act, stand saved and continue to have statutory force. Consequently, the RoW Rules, including the amendments governing compensation for use of street furniture, continue to operate and bind all authorities.

                  4.8. The petitioners emphatically assert that they do not provide mobile telecommunication services, do not operate using spectrum, and do not hold licences for 2G, 3G, 4G or mobile communication services. Therefore, the application of pole rental rates applicable to mobile or wireless telecommunication infrastructure to the petitioners’ wired networks is arbitrary and legally unsustainable. Reliance is also placed on the interim protection granted by this Court in WPC No. 40017 of 2024 and connected cases, wherein it was directed that upon payment of pole rent in accordance with the RoW Rules, ie, Rs. 100 per pole, coercive steps such as dismantling of cables shall not be taken.

                  4.9.    The petitioners further contend that the entire policy framework governing optical fibre–based telecom connectivity in the country proceeds on the footing that such infrastructure, particularly when deployed for universal service objectives, cannot be burdened with Right of Way charges or pole rental demands by State utilities or local bodies. The Universal Service Obligation regime, having statutory backing under the Telegraph Act, mandates that funds collected from telecom operators are to be utilised exclusively to ensure affordable and widespread connectivity, especially in rural and underserved areas, and the National Optical Fibre Network was established as a national asset in furtherance of this obligation.

                  4.10.   It is further contended that the Central Government, while implementing the NOFN project through Bharat Broadband Network Limited, consciously adopted a policy of non- discriminatory, charge-free access to existing public infrastructure, including electricity distribution networks, in order to avoid cost escalation and implementation delays. This policy was not merely executive in nature, but was formalised through Cabinet decisions, binding communications of the Department of Telecommunications, and specific Government Orders issued by the State Government granting blanket Right of Way permissions without levy of charges.

                  4.11.   The petitioners assert that the Tripartite Agreement executed between the Central Government, the State Government and BBNL has a binding and overriding character, under which the State expressly undertook that no RoW charges, reinstatement charges or pole rentals would be levied by any State agency, local authority or electricity utility, and that electric utilities would provide access to their distribution infrastructure free of cost. Such commitments were made in recognition of the public-interest character of the telecom backbone and the larger constitutional and statutory goal of universal access.

                  4.12.   Accordingly, the petitioners contend that any subsequent or parallel demand for pole rent or allied charges by electricity utilities or local authorities is directly contrary to the declared national telecom policy, the statutory Universal Service framework, and the binding assurances extended by the State itself. Such demands defeat the very object of universal connectivity, amount to an impermissible attempt to monetise public infrastructure contrary to governmental commitments, and are liable to be interdicted as arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra vires the governing policy and legal regime.

                  4.13.   On these grounds, the petitioners seek setting aside and quashing of the impugned demand notices, invoices, orders and proceedings issued by the respective respondents demanding pole rent in excess of the rates lawfully prescribed, and a declaration that pole rent, can be levied only strictly in accordance with the Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules, 2024 (and the earlier applicable Right of Way Rules / Government Orders from time to time), and for consequential directions to the respondents to refix the pole rental charges in accordance with the said statutory framework, adjust or refund excess amounts already collected, and to refrain from taking any coercive action including dismantling of cables, so long as the petitioners comply with the rates lawfully prescribed.

5. Opposing the prayers sought in the writ petitions, a counter affidavit has been filed by respondent, KSEBL in WPC No. 40017/2024, wherein it is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law and is an abuse of the process of this Court. KSEBL submits that the petitioner is a commercial operator providing both Cable TV and high-speed broadband services through a fibre network strung across lakhs of electric poles of KSEBL, under permissions granted since 1992. The activity is purely commercial in nature, and the petitioners are bound by the contractual and statutory framework governing the use of electric poles.

                  5.1.    It is stated that pole-rental rates have, from time to time, been fixed by KSEBL through various Board Orders, and that the Government Orders of 2021, issued during the pandemic, were intended only for Cable TV operators and not for internet service providers. KSEBL had duly adopted the reduced rates for Cable TV, while expressly retaining the higher rates applicable to “other services” including 2G/3G/4G/mobile communication and internet services, as per the pre-existing Board Orders. KSEBL contends that the petitioners have deliberately misrepresented the Board Orders and are attempting to camouflage their true classification as internet service providers. The Board Orders dated 25.02.2012 and 05.07.2021 make an explicit and deliberate distinction between Cable TV and “other services”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the use of the term “etc” in legislative or administrative documents must be interpreted ejusdem genereis (of the same kind) to include services analogous to those explicitly mentioned. Applying these principles, “other services” and “etc” in KSEBL’s Board Order clearly encompass internet services and modern communications technologies like 2G/3G/4G/mobile communications. The petitioners, being internet service providers, fall squarely in that latter category and cannot claim Cable TV rates. The Board’s intent to classify such services separately from Cable TV is unambiguous and was established to ensure fair and proportional compensation for the use of its infrastructure.

                  5.2.    It is further contended that the writ petition is in essence a dispute relating to reconciliation of amounts due under a contractual pole-rental arrangement, which is a civil dispute not amenable to adjudication under Article 226. The petitioner has not executed the mandatory agreement since 01.04.2021 despite using more than six lakh poles, and substantial dues remain unpaid. Though an appellate mechanism is provided under the Government Order dated 08.07.2021, the petitioners have not invoked that remedy.

                  5.3.    KSEBL contends that the electricity distribution network is a statutory asset created under the Electricity Act. The poles constitute distribution assets erected under powers exercised under Section 164 of the Act read with Part III of the Telegraph Act. Permission to use such poles is only a permissive exercise under Section 51 of the Electricity Act for generating additional non-tariff revenue. Any reduction in pole-rental rates directly results in revenue loss and consequent tariff increases, which KSEBL is statutorily bound to avoid.

                  5.4.    It is specifically asserted that neither the Telecommunication Act nor the 2024 RoW Rules has any application to the petitioners. The said Rules are intended for “facility providers” authorised to establish telecommunication networks, especially for expanding infrastructure in unserved and remote areas. The petitioner is not a “facility provider” within the meaning of the Act, and cannot claim the concessional rate of Rs.100 per pole under Rule 11(8). It is emphasised that the basic intent of the Right of Way Rules is not to subsidise commercially established internet providers, but to facilitate the creation of new infrastructure.

                  5.5.    The KSEBL also contends that Section 174 of the Electricity Act gives the Act an overriding effect over any inconsistent law. Hence, the Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, including the 2022 Amendment, cannot override Sections 51, 173, 174, and 175 of the Electricity Act. Only those laws compatible with the Electricity Act can apply. As such, the pole-rental rates fixed by KSEBL under the Electricity Act cannot be displaced by the Right of Way Rules. TRAI restrictions apply only to Cable TV tariffs and not to pole rents for internet services.

                  5.6.    It is reiterated that no operator has any statutory right to use KSEBL poles free of cost or at self-determined rates. Use of poles requires execution of agreements, adherence to safety protocols, and payment of the rates fixed by the Board. Unauthorised or non- standard cabling poses safety risks and is liable to be removed. It is asserted that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner justify interference under Article 226. The reliefs sought are unsustainable, the petitioners have suppressed material facts, and their attempt is merely to evade lawful dues. The writ petition may therefore be dismissed with costs, allowing KSEBL to recover all amounts lawfully due under the applicable Board Orders and Government directives.

6. In the counter filed by the respondent, Thrissur Corporation, it is contended that the petitions are liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has no vested or absolute right to insist that pole rent be fixed at KSEB rates or in terms of settlement, which pertained only to Cable TV operators. It is asserted that Thrissur Corporation is the only Local Authority in the State which is also a distribution licensee and is therefore entitled to levy miscellaneous charges distinct from KSEB. Relying on KSERC cost- data order dated 14.10.2016 permitting the Corporation to charge 10% above KSEB rates, the Municipal Council revised pole rent by Resolution No.39 dated 07.06.2018 to Rs.320/-, by Resolution No.90 dated 12.07.2018 to Rs.352/-, and thereafter to Rs.387.20/- per pole, culminating in Exhibit P17 fixing Rs.686/- for 2024-25. The respondents submit that the petitioner paid these amounts under protest without challenging the resolutions and is therefore estopped from disputing the subsequent revisions. They also contend that the petitioner cannot now impeach the demand since KSERC cost-data order dated 14.10.2016, the foundational regulatory order, has never been challenged.

                  6.1. The respondents further contend that Government Order fixing pole rent for KSEB does not bind a distribution licensee such as the Corporation, and that the RoW Rules and amendments do not govern pole-rent payable for drawing cables through poles owned by a distribution licensee. They point out that KSEB itself, by Board order dated 13.08.2021, fixed pole rent at Rs.506.58 per pole in Corporation areas with effect from 01.04.2021. The dispute, according to them, arises purely out of contractual terms and cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

7. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner Sri Ramesh Babu along with Sri. Saji Varghese argued that the petitioner is both a cable TV operator and a licensed wireline Internet Service Provider, and the very same poles used for cable TV distribution are also used for their broadband services. It is submitted that the petitioner holds a valid authorisation under Section 3 of the Telecommunication Act, and therefore qualifies as a “facility provider” within the meaning of Section 10 of the said Act, entitled to seek and obtain RoW permissions strictly in accordance with Section 11 of the said Act. Attention is also invited to Section 56(2) (n) of the Telecommunication Act, empowering the Central Government to regulate timelines and permissible charges for RoW in public property, which has been implemented through the RoW Rules, as amended from time to time.

                  7.1. Learned Senior Counsel places particular reliance on the amendment of Right of Way Rules dated 17.08.2022 (produced as Ext. P10(b) in WPC No. 40017/2024), introducing Section 10A of the Rules, which creates a uniform national framework for permitting the use of street furniture, including electricity poles, for installation of small cells and telegraph lines. Under these Rules, a licensee may submit an application accompanied only by administrative fees not exceeding the amounts specified in Part-I of the Schedule, and the authority may levy compensation not exceeding the ceiling fixed in Part-III, presently Rs.100 per pole per annum. The authority must decide the application within 60 days, failing which permission is deemed to have been granted. The expression “overground telegraph infrastructure” expressly includes posts, poles and above-ground contrivances used for establishing or maintaining telegraph lines; therefore, the electricity poles of the respondents are part of telegraph infrastructure governed by Central Rules, and cannot be subjected to arbitrary or unilateral pole-rental fixation.

                  7.2.    The Learned Counsel also submits that mobile towers have long been recognised as telegraph lines, and the RoW rules applies uniformly to all categories of telecommunication infrastructure. The respondents’ attempt to apply the pole-rental model meant for 2G/3G/4G mobile operators, who use only a few poles, rely on licensed spectrum, possess mobile access licences, and serve a vastly larger subscriber base, is wholly arbitrary, particularly since the petitioner is only a wired data provider without any mobile- telephony licence.

                  7.3.    It is further contended that till the period up to 31.03.2021, the petitioner was paying the pole rent in terms of the agreement entered into between them in view of the settlement arrived in the proceedings before the Kerala Legal Services Authority. The dispute therefore relates to the period from 01.04.2021. It is argued that the Right of Way is a regulated activity and all matters relating to the same is governed by the RoW Rules framed by the Central Government under the powers conferred by the Telegraph Act and subsequently under the Telecommunications Act.

                  7.4.    Relying on Section 3(1AA) definition of Telegraph under the Telegraph Act, it is contended that the activity carried out by the petitioners whether it is cable TV or broad-band connectivity falls squarely within the ambit of the definition of telegraph. It is further submitted that the notification dated 09.01.2004 issued by the Central Government to the effect that broadcasting services and cable services as ‘telecommunications service’. The statutory definition was introduced with effect from 01.04.2002. It is argued that the Right of Way Rules, originally framed in 2016 and subsequently amended in 2021, 2022 and finally replaced by the RoW Rules, 2024, comprehensively regulate compensation payable for use of street furniture, including electric poles. From 21.10.2021 onwards, i.e., from the date of amendment of Row Rules in 2016, the statutory Rules limits compensation to nominal, standardised amounts, culminating in a rate of Rs.100 per pole per annum, leaving no scope for higher or variable rentals through executive orders or contracts.

                  7.5. The petitioners argued that they qualify as “facility providers”, holding valid Internet Service Authorisation as per Section 4 under the Telegraph Act, which continues under the Telecommunications Act, by virtue of saving clauses. Consequently, the right of way provisions under Chapter III of the 2023 Act and the Rules framed thereunder are binding on all public entities, including KSEBL, and override any inconsistent administrative practice.

                  7.6.    It is further contended that KSEBL’s reliance on the Electricity Act, 2003, particularly Sections 51, 174 and 175, is misplaced, as there is no inconsistency between the Electricity Act and the Right of Way Rules, which operate in distinct but complementary fields. It is argued that Section 174 of the Electricity Act speaks of the overriding effect of the provisions of the Act and inconsistent with any other law for the time being in force. Firstly there is no inconsistency and secondly the right of way rules are enforced with effect from 2016 whereas the Electricity Act was brought into force with effect from 10.06.2003. Section 175 says that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of other laws. The application of the Right of Way Rules therefore applies even going by Section 175 of the Electricity Act. It is argued that Section 51 is not a provision which enables the Board to engaging in commercial activity dehors the RoW Rules, 2016. Any such contention also invites the frown of Article 19 of the Constitution. Even assuming that the Board is an entity covered by Article 19, such freedom can be exercised only subject to the restrictions under Article 19(6). This measure is the RoW Rules. Government of Kerala, on 10th July 2025 also decided to implement 2024 Telecommunication (Right of Way) Rules. Hence, KSEBL cannot override the decision of Central Government, State Government and insist on demanding higher pole rentals.

                  7.7.    It is also argued that contention premised on Cable TV Act, is also not sustainable. In this context, it is submitted that Cable TV is treated as telecommunication vide Gazette notification 39 dated 9th January, 2004. The Right of Way provisions under the Cable TV Act also do not enable the Board to indiscriminately demand pole rentals. Going by Section 4B of the the Cable TV Act, it applies firstly in the context of underground cables. Secondly it permits only for recouping the expenses for laying underground cables and erecting posts making it evident that it is intended to cover instances where the pole is to be erected by the cable operator. Therefore, going by the said Act, the Board can claim no amount for providing right of way.

                  7.8. It is also submitted by the petitioner that petitioners are not going back on their obligation up to 31.03.2021 where the pole rental gets fixed by virtue of the agreement in terms of the settlement under the Legal Services authority and they are willing to comply with pole rental as per Exts.P2, P3 and P7 in W.P.(C) No.40017 of 2024 till 21st October, 2021 post which rates as per RoW Rules, 2016 and 2024 are applicable.

8. Adv.M.P. Shameem Ahamed appearing in W.P.(C) No. 35490/2025, contends that, from the inception of the regulatory framework governing the sector, cable services have consistently been treated and classified as “telecommunication services”. It is submitted that the evolution of the cable television industry, particularly post digitisation, clearly demonstrates its integration into the larger telecom regulatory regime.

                  8.1. It is contended that prior to digitisation, local cable operators were able to downlink television signals in analogue mode with minimal infrastructure. However, with the introduction of mandatory digitisation, television signals could thereafter be downlinked only in encrypted digital mode, necessitating substantial investment in sophisticated head-end infrastructure. In order to ensure that small and local cable operators were not displaced from the system, the regulatory framework introduced the concept of Multi System Operators (MSOs), who would establish the necessary digital infrastructure and supply encrypted signals to Local Cable Operators (LCOs) for further distribution to subscribers.

                  8.2.    It is pointed out that the regulatory intent behind introduction of MSOs and the restructuring of the cable television sector is reflected in the consultation papers and regulations issued by TRAI, including the consultation paper dated 09.04.2019 on entry-level net worth requirements for MSOs. Post digitisation, the relationship between broadcasters, MSOs and LCOs has been comprehensively governed by statutory interconnection arrangements, ensuring a level playing field and continuity of service delivery.

                  8.3.    Reference is made to the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017, which mandate interconnection between service providers and incorporate a “must provide” obligation, requiring MSOs to supply signals to LCOs on request, subject to prescribed statutory contracts. It is contended that such interconnection and infrastructure sharing is a defining feature of the telecom sector and is equally applicable to cable television services.

                  8.4.    Against this historical and regulatory backdrop, reliance is placed on Section 3(1) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act (TRAI), 1997, under which TRAI was constituted for regulating telecommunication services. The expression “telecommunication service” is defined under Section 2(k) of the Act, and the proviso thereto empowers the Central Government to notify additional services, including broadcasting services, as telecommunication services.

                  8.5.    In exercise of the said power, the Government of India, by Notification dated 09.01.2004, expressly notified broadcasting services and cable services as telecommunication services. Consequently, cable services stand statutorily recognised as telecommunication services. This position was further reinforced by the amendment introduced through Act 21 of 2011 to the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, whereby clause (ai) was inserted in Section 2 defining the “Authority” as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, thereby expressly vesting regulatory oversight of the cable television sector with the telecom regulator.

                  8.6.    It is further submitted that the Telecommunications Act, 2023 has amended certain provisions of the TRAI Act, including insertion of a new definition of “telecommunication” under Section 2(ja) by virtue of Section 59(c) of the 2023 Act. However, the definition of “telecommunication service” under Section 2(k) of the TRAI Act has not been disturbed, and the notification dated 09.01.2004 issued thereunder continues to operate with full force. As a result, two distinct expressions now coexist: (i) “telecommunication”, as newly defined under the 2023 Act, and (ii) “telecommunication service”, which continues to expressly include cable services.

                  8.7. Attention is also drawn to the amendments made to the definitions of “licensor” and “licensee” under the TRAI Act by Sections 59(A) and 59(B) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, whereby cable operators have been expressly brought within the statutory framework. It is contended that even under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, the expression “telecommunication” is defined broadly enough to include cable services, having regard to the definition of “message” under Section 2(g), which includes any sign, signal, sound, video or data transmitted through telecommunication.

                  8.8.    It is further argued that a local cable operator is not an internet service provider in its own right. Cable operators function under valid registrations under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and operate their own cable television networks, billing subscribers exclusively for cable television services. Broadband services are billed directly by licensed internet service providers, and cable operators merely provide last-mile connectivity through their pre-existing cable infrastructure, in compliance with Rule 5C of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 2023. The same optical fibre cable is used for both cable television signals and broadband data, without installation of any additional cables or equipment on electricity poles.

                  8.9.    According to the petitioners, once pole rent is paid and permission is granted for drawal of cables, the nature of the data transmitted through the cable is irrelevant to the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited, particularly when no additional infrastructure is installed on the poles. Such sharing of infrastructure is stated to be analogous to interconnection and infrastructure-sharing practices prevalent across the telecom sector.

                  8.10.   Reliance is also placed on a Board Order dated 21.05.2021 produced by the respondent Board, wherein permissions were granted for drawal of cables and the purpose of usage was indicated as “BSNL FTTH”, thereby demonstrating that the internet service provider licence holder is BSNL and not the cable operator. It is contended that if an ISP licence was required to be held by the cable operator, such permissions would not have been granted.

                  8.11.   It is further submitted that although the respondent Board has raised practical and financial concerns regarding implementation of the Right of Way Rules, the validity of the said Rules has not been challenged. In the absence of any such challenge, administrative inconvenience or financial implications cannot be relied upon as a justification to deny the statutory rights conferred upon cable operators under the applicable legal and regulatory framework.

9. The learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB, Sri. B Premod, argued that the petitioners are major provider of both cable TV and high speed internet service providers and their activities are purely commercial. The petitioners, M/s Asianet Stellite Communications Ltd and M/s Asianet Digital Network Pvt. Limited has consistently represented themselves before KSEBL as Multi System Operators (MSOs) licensed under the cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. All agreement, correspondences and submissions over the preceding years are to the effect that the petitioners are engaged in broadcasting video signals and Cable TV operations. In the Tripartitie Agreement as well it is seen that KSEB poles are used for video and allied services. It is also submitted that the activity of the petitioners are carried out on the basis of the certificate issued by the Registering Authority under Section 4 r/w Rule 5 of the Cable Television Rules, 1994, and is regulated by the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act, 1995, as far as the Cable TV Operations are concerned and the Information Technology Act, 2000 as far as Internet Service are concerned. The petitioners infrastructure is pre existing and is used for cable TV operations and is not intended for expanding rural telecom connectivity and the Telecommunication Act has no application to them and therefore has no legal right to claim concessional pole rental rates. It is argued that going by the status of an Internet Service Provider under the Information Technology Act, 2000, Internet Service Providers are treated only as intermediaries/network service providers whose role is confined to providing access to the internet and transmission of data, without undertaking any telecommunication service. The Unified License also prohibits voice communication except internet telephony which is different service in its scope and nature and kind from real time voice service offered in telecommunication service. It also provides that the licensee shall have no connectivity with public switched telephone network/public land mobile network/Global mobile personal communication by satellite. As such the provisions of the telegraph Act or the Telecommunication Act and their Rules are not applicable to the petitioner and its activity.

                  9.1.    Cable TV and internet connectivity in Kerala is provided by both private operators and the State initiative KFON, with private providers such as Asianet and Kerala Vision operating through fibre and traditional cable networks using KSEB poles under pole-rent agreements, instead of exercising powers under Section 4B of the Cable TV Act. Pole rent has been periodically fixed by KSEB through Board orders, with a temporary reduction granted in 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was expressly intended as a short-term and progressive arrangement. It is also argued that the RoW rules is not intended to fix or refix the pole rental rates payable by the existing cable TV and internet service providers who have already established their network service and they are paying the rent fixed by the KSEBL for hiring the poles.

                  9.2. It is also urged that KSEBL, as a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act enjoys statutory autonomy to manage its assets and finances, and that pole rentals constitute a legitimate source of non-tariff revenue, which directly impacts the Board’s obligation to maintain financial viability and ensure stable electricity tariffs as regulated by the KSERC. It is further argued that the electric poles erected by the KSEBL is the part of the distribution asset of the Board and its usage strictly rest within the domain of the KSEBL.

                  9.3.    The grant of poles for purpose of transmitting cable TV signal, internet and other services are done by the Board intending to generate additional revenue as provided under Section 51 of the Electricity Act. The State has sought to bridge residual connectivity gaps, particularly in rural areas, through the Kerala Fiber Optic Network (KFON) project, aligned with the Central Government’s Digital India mission. The project is implemented by a consortium led by Bharat Electronics Limited, a Central Public Sector Undertaking, which has accepted the pole rental rates fixed by KSEB Limited.

                  9.4.    As per the details from annual accounts of KSEBL the total revenue towards pole rent for the Financial Year 2023-2024 is Rs.60.58 crores and higher the revenue generated, the lesser will be the burden of tariff. Therefore, the KSEBL cannot offer its poles either at reduced rates or free of cost to anyone. Any decision in reduction of rates for pole rental charges will result in susbstantial revenue loss for the utility which will affect the liquidity and cash flow and is not compatible with the Electricity Act of 2003. According to Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003 “Only laws that are compatible with the provisions of this Act shall be applicable.” Therefore, the rates provided under the Indian Telegraph Right of Way (Amendment) Rules, 2022 has no applicbaility to the Board.

                  9.5. It is also argued that in view of Sections 41, 51, 174 and 175 of the Electricity Act which prohibit subsidisation or encumbrance of transmission and distribution assets and confer overriding effect on the Act, the RoW Rules 2022 are inapplicable to KSEBL to the extent they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Electricity Act.

10. Heard, learned Senior Counsel, Sri. S Ramesh Babu, instructed by Sri. Saji Varghese, Smt. Mariam Mathai, Sri. N.Krishnaprasad for the petitioner in WPC No. 40017/2024 and connected cases, Sri. M.P Shameem Ahamed, Sri.Philip T. Varghese, Smt. Daisy A. Philipose, Sri. Saijo M George, Sri. M.Sasindran, Sri. S. Shanavas Khan, Sri. Sandeep Gopalakrishnan, Smt. Anju Davis.K., Sri. Saijo Hassan, Sri. G Hariharan, Sri. Aji V. Dev, Sri. Jagan Abraham M. George for petitioners in other writ petitions, Sri. B Pramod, learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB, Smt. Surya Binoy, learned Senior Government Pleader and Sri. Santosh Poduval, learned Standing Counsel for Thrissur corporation.

11. It is necessary to advert to the relevant statutory provisions to decide the issues arising for consideration.

                  I. The Telecommunications Act, 2023:

                  1. Section 2-Definitions:

                  (e) "authorised entity" means a person holding an authorisation under section 3;

                  (P) "telecommunication" means transmission, emission or reception of any messages, by wire, radio, optical or other electro-magnetic systems, whether or not such messages have been subjected to rearrangement, computation or other Processes by any means in the course of their transmission, emission or reception;

                  (s) "telecommunication network" means a system or series of systems of telecommunication equipment or infrastructure, including terrestrial or satellite networks or submarine networks, or a combination of such networks, used or intended to be used for Providing telecommunication services, but does not include such telecommunication equipment as notified by the Central Government;

                  (t)      "telecommunication service" means any service for telecommunication;

                  2. Section 3-Authorisation

                  (1) Any Person intending to---

                  (a) Provide telecommunication services;

                  (b) establish, operate, maintain or expand telecommunication network; or

                  (c) Possess radio equipment,

                  shall obtain an authorisation from the Central Government, subject to such terms and conditions, including fees or charges, as may be Prescribed.

                  (3) The Central Government, if it determines that it is necessary in the Public interest so to do, may Provide exemption from the requirement of authorisation under sub-section (1), in such manner as may be Prescribed.

                  (4) Any exemption granted Prior to the appointed day under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885) or the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 (17 of 1933) shall continue under this Act, unless otherwise notified by the Central Government.

                  (5) Any authorised entity may undertake any merger, demerger or acquisition, or other forms of restructuring, subject to any law for the time being in force and any authorised entity that emerges Pursuant to such Process, shall comply with the terms and conditions, including fees and charges, applicable to the original authorised entity, and such other terms and conditions, as may be Prescribed.

                  (6) A licence, registration, permission, by whatever name called, granted prior to the appointed day under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885) or the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 (17 of 1933), in respect of provision of telecommunication services or telecommunication network---

                  (a) where a definite validity period is given, shall be entitled to continue to operate under the terms and conditions and for the duration as specified under such licence or registration or permission, or to migrate to such terms and conditions of the relevant authorisation, as may be prescribed; or

                  (b) where a definite validity period is not given, shall be entitled to continue to operate on the terms and conditions of such licence or registration or permission for a period of five years from the appointed day, or to migrate to such terms and conditions of the relevant authorisation, as may be prescribed.

                  (7) Any authorised entity which provides such telecommunication services as may be notified by the Central Government, shall identify the person to whom it provides telecommunication services through use of any verifiable biometric based identification as may be prescribed.

                  (8) The Central Government may, subject to such terms and conditions, including fees or charges as may be prescribed, allot telecommunication identifiers for use by authorised entities.

                  (9) The Central Government may allow use of telecommunication identifiers allotted by international bodies which are recognised by the Central Government from time to time.

                  3. Section 10-Definition of terms used in this

                  For the purpose of this Chapter,---

                  (a) "facility Provider" means the Central Government or any authorised entity, including any contractor or sub-contractor or agent working for the Central Government or authorised entity, and shall include their successor or assignee;

                  (b) "Public entity" means,---

                  (i) the Central Government;

                  (ii) the State Government;

                  (iii) local authority;

                  (iv) any authority, body, company or institution incorporated or established by the Central Government or the State Government, or under any statute; or

                  (v) any non-government entity vested with the ownership, control or management of any Public facility or class of Public facilities, as may be notified by the Central Government;

                  (c) "public property" means any property, whether movable or immovable including any machinery, which is owned by, or in the possession of, or under the control or management of any public entity.

                  4. Section 11-Right of way for telecommunication network in Public Property:

                  (1) Any facility Provider may submit an application to a Public entity under whose ownership, control or management, the Public Property is vested, to seek Permissions for right of way for telecommunication network under, over, along, across, in or upon such Public Property.

                  (2) On receipt of an application from a facility Provider under sub-section (1), the Public entity shall, subject to the Provisions of sub-section (4), grant Permission for all or any of the following acts, namely:---

                  (a) survey such Property for the Purpose of assessing the feasibilty for establishing telecommunication network; or

                  (b) enter the Property from time to time to establish, oPerate, maintain, rePair, replace, augment, remove or relocate any telecommunication network.

                  (3) The Public entity shall grant Permission under sub-section

                  (2) in an expeditious manner and within such timelines as may be Prescribed, and subject to such administrative expenses and compensation for right of way, which shall not exceed such amount as may be Prescribed.

                  (4) Any rejection of an application under sub-section (1) shall be based on reasonable grounds to be recorded in writing.

                  (5) The facility Provider shall do as little damage as Possible to the Public Property, and ensure that the functionality and continuity of operations over such Public Property is not adversely affected, while undertaking any of the activities for which Permission has been granted under sub-section (2).

                  (6) If any damage is caused to the Property, the facility Provider shall, at the option of the Public entity, either,---

                  (a) restore such Property to its state as existed Prior to the undertaking of such activities; or

                  (b) Pay compensation for such damage as may be mutually agreed.

                  (7) The Provisions of this section shall be applicable to any Public Property vested for such Projects or class of Projects as notified by the Central Government, in respect of which, applications under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Public entity granting the concession, contract or Permission for such Projects.

                  5. Section 56-Power of Central Government to make rules:

                  (1) The Central Government may, by notification, and subject to the condition of previous publication, make rules not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to carry out the purposes of this Act.

                  (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:---

                  (a) the terms and conditions, including fees or charges for obtaining authorisation under sub-section (1) of section 3;

                  (b) the manner of exemption for providing authorisation under sub- section (3) of section 3;

                  (c) the terms and conditions, including fees and charges, applicable to the original authorised entity that emerges pursuant to any merger, demerger, acquisition, or other forms of restructuring, under sub-section (5) of section 3;

                  (d) the terms and conditions for migration under sub-section (6) of section 3;

                  (e) the verifiable biometric based identification to be used by an authorised entity of telecommunication services under sub-section (7) of section 3;

                  (f) the terms and conditions, including fees or charges for allotment of telecommunication identifiers for use by authorised entities under sub-section (8) of section 3;

                  (g) the terms and conditions for the assignment of spectrum, including the frequency range, methodology for pricing, price, fees and charges, payment mechanism, duration and procedure under sub-section (3) of section 4;

                  (h) the manner of exemptions for assignment of spectrum under sub- section (7) of section 4;

                  (i) the terms and conditions for re-farming and harmonisation under section 5;

                  (j) the terms and conditions, including applicable fees and charges, and any other relevant condition subject to which the utilisation of the spectrum in a flexible, liberalised and technologically neutral manner under section 6;

                  (k) the terms and conditions for optimal utilisation of spectrum under sub-section (1) of section 7;

                  (l) the period of unutilised spectrum for insufficient reasons and further terms and conditions relating to spectrum utilisation under sub-section (2) of section 7;

                  (m) the terms and conditions, including applicable fees or charges for sharing, trading, leasing and surrender of assigned spectrum, under sub-section (2) of section 8;

                  (n) ) the timeline for granting Permission for right of way for telecommunication network in Public ProPerty; and the amount for administrative exPenses and comPensation for right of way under sub-section (3) of section 11;

                  (o) the procedure to be followed by a facility provider to enter, survey, establish, operate, maintain, repair, replace or relocate the telecommunication network, including the notice period, the manner of issuance of notice, the framework governing objections by owner or occupier of the property, the manner in which such objections would be resolved, and matters relating to the compensation payable for any damage under sub-section (5) of section 12;

                  (p) the terms and conditions, including charges for right of way, and comPensation for damage to the ProPerty, under sub- section (6) of section 12;

                  (q) the terms and conditions, including fees and charges subject to which the telecommunication network to be made available on open access basis to facility providers under sub-section (2) of section 15;

                  (r) the procedure and manner for giving prior notice under sub- section (1) of section 17;

                  (s) the timeline for responding the notice with details of telecommunication network and precautionary measures to be undertaken by the facility provider under sub-section (2) of section 17;

                  (t) the procedure and safeguards for public emergency or public safety under sub-section (2) of section 20;

                  (u) the duration and manner of taking action for public emergency or public safety under sub-section (4) of section 20;

                  (v) the measures to protect and ensure cyber security of, telecommunication networks and telecommunication services under sub-section (1) of section 22;

                  (w) the standards, security practices, upgradation requirements and procedures to be implemented for the Critical Telecommunication Infrastructure under sub-section (4) of section 22;

                  (x)      the manner for administration of Digital Bharat Nidhi under section 26;

                  (y)      the manner and duration for creating Regulatory Sandbox under section 27;

                  (z)      the measures for protection of users under sub-section (2) of section 28;

                  (za) the manner for registration of any grievance and redressal of such grievances pertaining to the telecommunication service under sub-section (3) of section 28;

                  (zb) the terms and conditions for participating in the dispute resolution mechanism under sub-section (2) of section 30;

                  (zc) the form, manner and fees to be accompanied with the complaint under sub-section (1) of section 33;

                  (zd) the manner for holding inquiry by the Adjudicating Officer under sub-section (1) of section 35;

                  (ze) the form, manner and fees for filing an appeal before the Designated Appeals Committee under sub-section (2) of section 36;

                  (zf) the techno-legal measures for functioning of the Adjudicating Officer and the Designated Appeals Committee under sub-section (1) of section 37;

                  (zg) the terms and conditions of security interest under section 45; (zh) the terms and conditions, including applicable fees and charges for granting certificates under section 46;

                  (zi) the manner of certification, qualification, and terms and conditions, including fees and charges for the examination for amateur station operator under section 47;

                  (zj) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed, or in respect of which provision is to be made by rules.

                  (3) Every rule made under this Act and amendment to the Schedule made under section 57 shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or amendment to the Schedule or both Houses agree that the rule or amendment to the Schedule should not be made, the rule or amendment to the Schedule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule or amendment to the Schedule.

                  II. The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995:

1. Section 2-Definitions: