ORDER Heard Mr.R. Vijayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Vivekanandan the learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. V. Perumal, the learned counsel for 2nd respondent. 2. By consent of counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 3. This writ petition challenges the order of the first respondent dated 4.1.2005 and also for a direction against the second respondent, from forbearing the second respondent, from running the Cable Television operations at Thanthoni Municipality, Karur Taluk, Karur District, contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Television Cables Installation Regulation Rules, 2000. 4. The petitioner is one of the cable operators in the same area. The first respondent while giving the permission for cable operation to the second respondent by an order dated 4.1.2005 has imposed certain conditions. It is admitted that even though, the permission to operate cable television is given as per G.O. No. 51 dated 12.4.2000, it is also covered by the subsequent Government Order issued in G.O.Ms. No. 58, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAIV) dated 4.5.2000. Under the said G.O., the Government has framed the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Television Cables Installation Regulation Rules, 2000. Under the said provisions, to issue a permission for installation of television cable by operators, certain conditions are imposed and one of such condition covered as per Rule 3(b) of the Regulation is that not more than five lines can be taken in each light poles. While this is admitted by the petitioner, as per grant of permission for installation of cable television, the first respondent having given such permission to the second respondent, has permitted the second respondent to use light poles for the purpose of taking more than 5 lines. Under such circumstance being an operator already in existence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. The second respondent has filed his counter affidavit and in the counter affidavit, dated 23.3.2006, the second respondent has specifically stated that he is not using the light pole against the provisions of above said Regulation. He has also specifically stated that he has erected separate pole for taking the cable and using the same only for that purpose and not any other poles, which are being used by the petitioner. 6. He has also specifically stated that he has erected separate pole for taking the cable and using the same only for that purpose and not any other poles, which are being used by the petitioner. 6. The undertaking given by the second respondent in the counter affidavit in paragraph 3 are: “I humbly submit that even though I am entitled to take cables through electric poles as there are no other operators except the writ petitioner, I have not used the same. I have erected separate poles for taking cables and I am also using houses for carrying the lines.” 7. In view of the specific averments made by the second respondent which is in the form of undertaking, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of by recording such specific statement made by the second respondent. 8. In view of the same, recording the statement of the second respondent that he is not using the light poles against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Television Cables Installation Regulation Rules, 2000 and Rule 3(b) of the Regulation and he is using only separate pole for the purpose of taking their cable as per permission granted, the writ petition is disposed of, since no further order is required. It is needless to state that it is always open to the second respondent, to act as per the provision of the said Rules and ask for certain other poles and use the same for their cable operation in cases where their permissions are cancelled. Such permission shall be granted by the authority concerned only in accordance with the said Rules. There is no order as to cost. Consequently W.P.M.P. Nos. 2052 and 2053 of 2005 and W.V.M.P. No.138 of 2006 arc closed.