JUDGMENT B.K. NAYAK, J. – In this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 02.05.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri in I.A. No.25 of 2011 (arising out at C.S. NO.93 of 2008) directing opposite party Nos.1 and 2, authorities of Puri Municipality, to issue necessary direction to the present petitioner not to draw cable connection on the electric poles belonging to the Municipality. 2. The present opposite party No.3 has filed Civil Suit No.93 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri for perpetual injunction restraining the present opposite party Nos.1 and 2 (defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in the suit) from entering into any kind of agreement or according any permission to anyone else other than the plaintiff to draw cables on the electric poles belonging to opposite party Nos.1 and 2 in view of Government Notification dated 11.10.2001 and its addendum dated 04.01.2002 and a further mandatory injunction directing opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to remove any cables laid on such poles other than that of the plaintiff. In the suit one Sky Vision Cable Network, Pramod Kumar Bahinipati and Variety Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. were impleaded as defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively and the present petitioner is not a party to the suit. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules-1 and 2, C.P.C. seeking ad-interim ex-parte injunction against the defendants from laying cables on the electric poles belonging to defendant Nos.4 and 5. The said injunction application was registered as I.A. No.68 of 2008. By order dated 15.05.2008, the trial Court while issuing notice to the defendants passed ex-parte ad-interim order of status quo till appearance of the opposite parties in the said misc. case. By order dated 23.05.2008, the order of status quo was made absolute. 3. The suit and the aforesaid misc. case have been filed on the assertions that the plaintiff is a Cable Operator and also runs broadband connection services with cable laid on electric poles belonging to GRIDCO/ CESCO and Puri Municipal Authorities by entering into agreements with them. Though some electric poles on which electric wire has been drawn belong to Puri Municipality, the same are under the control and supervision of CESCO, the distribution company for the Central zone. Though some electric poles on which electric wire has been drawn belong to Puri Municipality, the same are under the control and supervision of CESCO, the distribution company for the Central zone. Therefore, for the purpose of laying cables on the poles belonging to the Municipality, the guidelines issued by the Energy Department of Government of Orissa are also applicable. The guidelines of the Energy Department vide Notification No.18271 dated 11.10.2001, as amended by Notification No.148 dated 04.01.2002, prescribes in Clause-16 thereof that only one number of cable shall run on one pole taking into consideration the height of the pole and leading of conductors. It is further alleged in the plaint that some other Cable Operators were operating in different parts of Puri Town, but after the launching of the network by the plaintiff those operators got tied up with the plaintiff in different forms, that is to say, some operators sold their franchise and business to the plaintiff while some others acted as agents by entering into agency agreement and some remained as franchisee on the basis of franchise agreements. Later the plaintiff detected that in course of time some of the franchisees not only became defaulters in payment of subscription charges to the plaintiff, but also illegally and unauthorisedly expanded their customer base, as a result of which, the plaintiff disconnected them as per terms of the franchise agreement. Some such franchisees have been trying indirectly to launch a similar kind of network/business in the name and style 'Sky Vision Cable Network' (defendant No.1). For the purpose of their business, the defendants are trying to lay cables on the electric poles of Puri Municipality and CESCO in contravention of the Government Notification dated 11.10.2001, which provides for laying only one cable on a single pole which means that no second cable can be laid on any pole. Defendant No.1 was illegally and unauthorisedly trying to use 100 number of poles belonging to the Municipality and for that purpose deposited some amount, which, if allowed, would be contrary to the guidelines stipulated in the Government Notification. Defendant No.2, Pramod Kumar Bahinipati, who is another franchisee and having the very subscriber base of the plaintiff over which defendant No.1 claims to have a right, colluded with the latter. Defendant No.2, Pramod Kumar Bahinipati, who is another franchisee and having the very subscriber base of the plaintiff over which defendant No.1 claims to have a right, colluded with the latter. The plaintiff has lodged F.I.R. in the Puri Town Police Station against the aforesaid illegal and criminal acts of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and has also issued notices to them. From the response received by the plaintiff pursuant to notice issued by it to defendant No.1 and subsequent certification in favour of defendant No.1, the plaintiff came to learn that defendant No.3, Variety Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. is the brain behind all the aforesaid mischievous acts, as the said company has got vested interest and is in litigating terms with the plaintiff. In spite of lodging of F.I.R. and issuance of notices to the aforesaid defendants and notice issued to defendant No.4, Puri Municipality, the defendants have not refrained from allowing and causing the illegal act of laying cables on the electric poles in violation of guidelines stipulated in the Government Notification of 2001. It is also asserted in the plaint that in the matter of laying cables by using the poles belonging to NESCO at Balasore, in a writ petition, this Court has directed for compliance of the aforesaid Notification of the Energy Department. Further, in a pending writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.11762 of 2006 filed by the present defendant No.3 (Variety Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.) challenging the aforesaid Government Notification, the Expert body OERC appointed by the High Court has given assent to the said notification. Lastly, it is alleged that seeking permission by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 and granting permission by defendant Nos.4 and 5 for laying cables in contravention of the aforesaid Government Notification is against the spirit of law and fraudulent and it causes loss and prejudice to the plaintiff. 4. Lastly, it is alleged that seeking permission by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 and granting permission by defendant Nos.4 and 5 for laying cables in contravention of the aforesaid Government Notification is against the spirit of law and fraudulent and it causes loss and prejudice to the plaintiff. 4. While the suit is pending, opposite party No.3-plaintiff filed a petition against the present opposite party Nos.1 and 2 under Section 151, C.P.C. praying for directing opposite party Nos.1 and 2, to recall any permission issued during subsistence pf the .order of status quo on the assertions that while the order of status quo is in force, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have entered into contract with other Cable Operators to lay cables in the poles belonging to them where the petitioner's cables have already been laid, which amounts to violation of the order of status quo by the opposite parties. The said application was registered as I.A. No.25 of 2011. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed their objection stating that the State Government has directed the opposite parties to carryon business on electric poles and that the permission to the plaintiff to lay cables remained in force for one year and before expiry of the said period of one year, the plaintiff has not applied for renewal and, therefore, allowing the other Cable Operators was not in violation of the order of status quo. It was further contended by the said opposite parties that at the time of the order of status quo there were already two licensees, namely, the plaintiff and the Variety Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (defendant No.3) and that the Variety Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. having not been granted license for the current year, the opposite parties have granted license to Manthan Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd. (the present writ petitioner). By allowing license to Manthan, the opposite parties have not obstructed or disturbed the business of the plaintiff. By allowing license to Manthan, the opposite parties have not obstructed or disturbed the business of the plaintiff. The trial Court by the impugned order allowed the said petition holding that the order of status quo passed by the Court is not to be interpreted by any other agency except the Court which passed it or its appellate forum and that allowing Manthan Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd. to lay cables in place of Variety Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. though appears to be accurate in number game but in spirit it amounts to allowing Manthan to draw cables without obtaining permission from the Court and as such violates the order of status quo. Accordingly, the trial Court has directed opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to direct Manthan Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd (writ petitioner) not to lay cable connection on the electric poles. 5. In the circumstances, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Manthan Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd. has filed this writ petition. Though, the impugned order went against opposite party Nos.1 and 2, they have not challenged it. Despite service of notice of this writ petition, opposite party Nos.1 and 2, the Municipal Authorities, have not entered appearance before this Court. 6. It is stated in the writ petition and contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the impugned order directly affects the petitioner, it was passed behind its back without making it a party to the proceeding in the Court below and, therefore, it is violative of principle of natural justice. It is also stated that the Variety Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (defendant No.3 in the suit) had filed W.P.(C) No.11762 of 2006 challenging the Government Notification dated 11.10.2001, as modified by Notification No.148 dated 04.01.2002, restricting the use of electric poles of the distribution companies to only one Cable Operator and the permission granted by CESCO to defendant No.3 to use its electric poles for cable business subject to rider stipulated in the Government Notification on the ground that the notification aimed at creating absolute monopoly and prohibiting fair competition amongst Cable Operators in the general public interest and as such it was unfair and discriminatory. The present opposite party No.3 (plaintiff in the suit) was impleaded as opposite party No.4 in the writ petition. The present opposite party No.3 (plaintiff in the suit) was impleaded as opposite party No.4 in the writ petition. Though the aforesaid Government Notification was not interfered with, this Court however by judgment dated 16.05.2008 quashed all the conditional agreements entered into between the Cable Operators and the CESCO and directed the State Government to issue guidelines stipulating standards and norms for selecting a Cable Operator in order to achieve a 'level playing field'. In pursuance of such judgment, the State Government adopted new policy decision and issued revised fresh Notification dated 30.04.2009 stipulating guidelines providing for allowing three Multi Service providers (MSO) to use the electric poles to lay cables. The present opposite party No.3 challenged the workability of the guidelines stipulated in the Notification dated 30.04.2009 by filing W.P.(C) No.10059 of 2009 which was disposed of on 21.07.2010 with a direction to the State Government to give a re-look to the guidelines and bring about modification to make the policy for allowing use of electric poles simultaneously by three Operators workable. It is contended by the petitioner that suppressing the aforesaid facts, particularly the fact that the earlier Government Notifications dated 11.10.2001 and 04.01.2002 have been superseded by notification dated 30.04.2009, opposite party No.3 has managed to get the impugned order passed. It is also contended that even though the agreement entered into between opposite party No.3 and the Puri Municipality for use of electric poles belonging to the Puri Municipality has expired and there has been no renewal of such agreement as contended by the Municipality in its objection, the trial Court without taking into account the said fact passed the impugned order asking opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to direct the present petitioner not to lay cables on the electric poles. It is further contended that the allegations made by the present opposite party No.3 before the Court below are in the nature of violation of the status quo order passed by it and instead of filing petition under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C., the petitioner filed petition under Section 151, C.P.C. for enforcement of the status quo order, which was not maintainable. 7. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 that there is no prohibition for invoking inherent power of the Court under Section 151, C.P.C. for enforcement of status quo order if the party bound by such order violates the same even though a petition could be filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A, C.P.C. for punishing the violator in the manner provided in the said provision. It is/also contended that the writ petitioner being not a party to the suit and mise.case filed by opposite party No.3, this writ petition at his instance is not maintainable. 8. The contention of the learned counsel. for the petitioner that specific provision under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. is available for dealing with the matter for violation of order of injunction or status quo, inherent under Section 151, C.P.C. can not be invoked is not acceptable for the reason that in a given case, if the Court comes to the conclusion that a breach of an order of injunction or status quo has taken place, it may invoke jurisdiction under Section 151, C.P.C. in order to bring back the parties to the same position as existed soon before the alleged violation. 9. Relying on several earlier decisions, the apex Court in the judgment reported in 2008(3) Civil Court Cases 556 (SC); Arjan Singh v. Pnit Ahluwalia and others held as under: ''There cannot be any dispute with regard to the aforementioned proposition of law. This decision answers the questions raised by Mr. Mehta that the consequences of violating the order of injunction must be kept confined only to Rule 2-A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We must also take notice of the fact that even a Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the event of coming to the conclusion that a breach to an order of restraint had taken place, may bring back the parties to the same position as if the order of injunction has not been violated. (Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar and others v. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund and others 2007(14) SCALE 283 )." 10. (Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar and others v. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund and others 2007(14) SCALE 283 )." 10. This Court also in the decision reported in 112 (2011) CLT 16; Dipti Ranjan Sahoo and another v. Nalini Kumari Sahoo held as follows: "Inherent power under Section 151, C.P.C. is always exercisable by the Court, in the interest of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of law. Directing restoration of possession or issuing a mandatory order to restore status quo as it existed prior to the order of injunction was passed, by undoing the wrong done by the violators, such order does riot in any way run contrary to the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2-A, .C.P.C." 2011 (Supp.I) OLR 793 11. On the question of locus standi of the petitioner to file the present writ petition it is worthy to note that in order to have the locus standi to invoke certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioner should be an "aggrieved person". It is held in the decision reported in AIR 1976 SC 578 ; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others that tile expression "aggrieved person" denotes an elastic, and, to an extent, an elusive concept. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest, and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him. The efficacy of these tests' varies according to the circumstances of the case in which the matter falls to be considered and they are: (i) Whether the applicant is a person whose legal right has been infringed? (ii) Whether he has suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the sense, that his interest has been prejudicially and directly affected by the act or omission of the authority? And (iii) Whether he is a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something? 12. (ii) Whether he has suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the sense, that his interest has been prejudicially and directly affected by the act or omission of the authority? And (iii) Whether he is a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something? 12. The material factual assertions made in the writ petition to the effect that the Government Notifications dated 11.10.2001 and 04.1.2002 which limited the use of electric poles to only one Cable Operator has been superseded by the subsequent notification dated 30.04.2009 which permits use of poles simultaneously by three cable operators and that the agreement to use the poles entered into between opposite party No.3 and the Puri Municipality had already expired and there was no renewal of the same have not been disputed. Of course, the status quo order which was allegedly violated by the Municipality and was sought to be enforced by invoking jurisdiction of the Court under Section 151, C.P.C. was passed on 15.05.2008 and 23.05.2008, i.e., prior to the issuance of Government Notification dated 30.04.2009, but by the time the petition under Section 151, C.P.C. was filed by opposite party No.3(I.A.) No.25 of 2011), the Government Notification of 2009 had already come into force, which was also the subject matter of W.P.(C) No. 10059 of 2009 at the instance of opposite party No.3, but the same was suppressed from the Court below. The impugned order shows that the Municipality was specifically directed to prevent the present petitioner from drawing cables on the poles belonging to the Puri Municipality. There is no dispute that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with the Puri Municipality to use its electric poles for laying cables in consonance with the Government Notification dated 30.04.2009 and the impugned order has directly affected his interest. In such circumstances, the petitioner must be considered to be a person aggrieved and the present writ petition at his instance is maintainable. 13. In such circumstances, the petitioner must be considered to be a person aggrieved and the present writ petition at his instance is maintainable. 13. Even though the original status quo order was passed when the Government Notifications dated 11.10.2001 and 04.01.2002 with regard to use of poles only by one cable operator were in force, whether the same status quo order was still required to be continued in the changed circumstance of issuance of Government Notification dated 30.04.2009 is the question which the Court below has not considered for the reason that opposite party No.3 did not bring it to the notice of the Court, but on the other hand, used the process of the Court to gain a favourable order in its favour. The Court below has also not taken into account the effect of expiry of agreement entered into between opposite party No.3 and Puri Municipality for using the poles as was contended before it by the Municipality in its objection. In case, the period for use of poles by opposite party No.3 as per the agreement had expired, the cause of action for opposite party No.3 to restrain the Municipality from allowing other Cable Operators to draw cable lines on the poles must be held to have ceased to exist. Without adverting to such question the Court below has committed a jurisdictional error. 14. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly I quash the same and direct the Court below to reconsider application under Section 151, C.P.C. (I.A. No.25 of 2011) afresh, as also I.A. NO.68 of 2008, if the same is still pending, taking into consideration the Government Notification dated 30.04.2009 and other relevant factors. It is open to the petitioner to file application before the Court below to be impleaded as a party to the suit if so advised. In case, such application is filed the same shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. Petition disposed of.