Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- 1. Mr. C.S.Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and Mrs. B Goyal, learned Govt. Advocate for the State of Assam. 2. In the present Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: 1. Issue orders/directions to the respondents for implementation of digital addressable cable system in Guwahati and other parts of State by strictly adhering to the guidelines and regulations issued by the TRAI for installation of set top boxes. 2. Issue orders/directions for investigation by an appropriate agency for gross financial anomalies committed by Axom Communication & Cable (P) Limited for installation of set top boxes from the period of 2009 for implementation of digital addressable cable system in Guwahati and other parts of State and submit the report before this Hon’ble Court for future necessary action. 3. Issue orders/directions to the respondents to impose VAT tax and other applicable taxes against the set top boxes installed by the respondent No. 8, as applicable under the law. 4. To issue orders/directions to the respondent No. 8 to refund the excess money collected from the subscribers/public as security money for installation of set top boxes for implementation of digital addressable cable system in Guwahati and other parts of the State. 5. Any or any other appropriate order as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper. -AND- In the interim, pending disposal of the instant PIL petition, Your Lordship may further to pass appropriate Order/direction to the respondent for implementation of digital addressable cable system in Guwahati and other parts of the State by strictly adhering to the guidelines and regulations issued by the TRAI for installation of set top boxes. 3. Respondent No. 8 is a multi-system operator, who receives a programming service from the broadcasters or his authorized agencies and retransmits the same or transmits his own programming service for simultaneously reception by the subscribers directly. 4. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 8 has excessively charged Rs. 1600-2000 per set top box during installation as security amount and has not paid VAT and other taxes to the Government. On these allegations, the petitioner has prayed for above-mentioned reliefs. 5. It is to be noted that although the petitioner has prayed for investigation regarding financial irregularities committed by Respondent No. 8, no FIR has been lodged. 1600-2000 per set top box during installation as security amount and has not paid VAT and other taxes to the Government. On these allegations, the petitioner has prayed for above-mentioned reliefs. 5. It is to be noted that although the petitioner has prayed for investigation regarding financial irregularities committed by Respondent No. 8, no FIR has been lodged. The petitioner has also not made any complaint to the competent authority alleging violation of tax laws against Respondent No. 8. Moreover, if any consumer is dissatisfied with the services provided by Respondent No. 8, he is at liberty to approach the Consumer Forum. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are convinced that this is not a genuine Public Interest Litigation. The petition is accordingly dismissed summarily.