JUDGMENT : By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court to restrain the respondents No. 4 and 5 from carrying on Cable T.V. Network (CTN) operation in the areas where the petitioner is registered as the Cable T.V. Network (CTN) Operator within the meaning of Section 4 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. 2. The petitioner has further urged to allow him operate CTN in the operational area covered by the registration without any hindrance from the respondents No. 4 and 5. For that purpose, the respondent No.1 be directed to take appropriate action against the respondents No. 4 and 5 for violating the mandatory provisions of Section 3 of the said Act. 3. In short, the petitioner case is that by virtue of the registration certificate No. C2-CTV/RNW/068 dated 10.09.2012 [Annexure P/3 to the writ petition] the petitioner has been registered as a cable operator for running the Cable TV Network (CTN) under the name of L.K Cable Network in the village of Malava under Kamalpur Tehashil Kachari(TK) area, all Barasurma TK area, Chotasurma Village area and Mahabir TK area in the city/town of Kamalpur, Dhalai Tripura for a period of one year with effect from 10.09.2012 to 09.09.2013. The said registration certificate has been renewed for the same area on 28.12.2013. The petitioner, however, did not state whether he had been given renewal of the said registration after its expiry on 09.09.2014. The petitioner has averred that on 27.11.2013 he lodged a complaint to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kamalpur, Dhalai Tripura, but copy of the said complaint is not produced with the writ petition. 4. It appears from the records that on the basis of his complaint, an inquiry under Section 116 of the Cr.P.C. was carried out by one Revenue Inspector. On 18.03.2013, the said Revenue Inspector submitted his inquiry report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kamalpur, Dhalai observing that (1) Maloy Chakraborty (the petitioner), (2) Paritosh Datta, (3) Ratan Deb Roy, (4) Biswajit Das (the respondent No.4) and (5) Biswajit Malakar (the respondent No.5) were operating Cable TV Network (CTN) in the said area where the petitioner was given registration. In the report, it has been observed that the petitioner had produced the registration certificate but the other four persons including the respondents No. 4 and 5 could not produce any registration certificate. In the report, it has been observed that the petitioner had produced the registration certificate but the other four persons including the respondents No. 4 and 5 could not produce any registration certificate. However, they had produced the copy of an agreement between DDL Cable Network and the respondents No. 4 and 5 authorizing them to act as the agent (Sub Cable Operator) of the DDL Cable Network. It has been clearly stated that the DDL Cable Network is registered under the said Act. 5. According to the petitioner, for peaceful operation and for observance of the mandate of Cable T.V. Networks (Regulation) Act, 1955, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kamalpur, Dhalai Tripura issued a notification on 28.03.2013 [Annexure P/6], whereby the following directions were issued : 1. Unregistered Sub-operators are required to apply for registration to the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kamalpur, Dhalai District, before 5th April, 2013. 2. In case of unregistered Sub-operators who had applied for registration & pending in this office, they shall write a reminding letter to the undersigned in plain paper within 5th April, 2013. 3. All Teshilder/Amin, shall enquire the no. of Cable subscribers and assess the dues lying with the unregistered sub-operators in their respective jurisdiction and submit the report to the undersigned within 5th April, 2013. 4. All the dues lying with the unregistered sub-operators shall be deposited to their main operator who shall deposit the same to office of the TDR, Kamalpur T.K. within 10th April, 2013. 5. All unregistered sub-operators shall not extend their area of operation until registration is done or without prior permission from the Authorized Officer (SDM, Kamalpur).” 6. The petitioner having taken the cue from the said report of the Revenue Inspector dated 18.03.2013 has averred that the respondents No. 4 and 5 have been violating the said notification dated 28.03.2013. The respondents No. 4 and 5 have admitted that they are not registered under Section 4 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. 7. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents No. 4 and 5 shall be restrained from continuing with breach of Section 3 of the said Act which provides that no person shall operate a Cable Television Network unless he is registered as a cable operator under the said Act. 7. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents No. 4 and 5 shall be restrained from continuing with breach of Section 3 of the said Act which provides that no person shall operate a Cable Television Network unless he is registered as a cable operator under the said Act. According to him, stringent action shall be taken against them including issuance of the restraint order prohibiting them from running the Cable television Network in the areas which is covered by the registration of the petitioner. In accordance with the said Act, the registering authority means such authority as the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette specify to perform the function of the registering authority. 8. Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned CGC appearing for the respondent No.3 has submitted that as per Section 2(iv) of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, the post master of a head post office has been notified to be the registration authority. The respondent No. 3 has categorically asserted further that the respondents No. 4 and 5 are not registered under the said Act. They have further asserted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is to decide and fix the area where a person can operate cable TV network. In the case of the petitioner, after determination of the area by the SDM, the petitioner was registered as the Cable TV Network Operator. 9. The respondents No. 4 and 5 by filing the reply have categorically stated that they are working with the DDL Vision Cable Network owned by Smt. Aparna Sen (Lodh) and Sri Sasanka Shekhar Deb. By virtue of the registration, the DDL Vision Cable Network has been permitted for running a cable television network in the area from Kamalpur to Bathkhouri, District Kamalpur. The entire Kamalpur area was therefore within the permitted area of DDL Cable Network of Kamalpur. 10. Mr. D. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 and 5 has submitted that the respondents No. 4 and 5 having entered in the agreement with the DDL Vision Cable Network, are working for them. Thus, there is no violation when the DDL Vision Cable Network is operating through them in the area covered by the registration certificate [Annexure R/1 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No. 4 and 5]. 11. Thus, there is no violation when the DDL Vision Cable Network is operating through them in the area covered by the registration certificate [Annexure R/1 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No. 4 and 5]. 11. The notification dated 28.03.2013 is ex facie without authority of law inasmuch as Cable T.V. Networks (Regulation) Act, 1955 does not authorise the SDM to declare the “Unregistered sub-operators are required to apply for registration to the office of the SDM, Kamalpur, Dhalai District.” The respondents No. 4 and 5 have taken a stand from the very beginning that they are working under the registration certificate issued in favour of DDL Vision Cable Network. Whether franchising the activity within the area covered by the registration certificate can be held illegal? When the principal owes all obligations arising from the registration certificate such arrangement in the touchstone of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 cannot be held illegal. The rule making power has not been parted with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It is neither available under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. Hence, the notification dated 28.03.2013 cannot be held consistent with the said Act. If there is any allegation as to the breach of the conditions of the registration the authorised officer having received a complaint or otherwise may take penal action against the registered person. Even the petitioner could have filed such complaint. He had filed one complaint on the basis of which the SDM initiated a proceeding for extracting a bond for maintaining peace and tranquillity under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. In the inquiry, the Revenue Inspector has categorically stated that they were working under the registration certificate of DDL Vision Cable Network. Even they had expressed their inclination for having them registered under Section 4 of the said act. 12. In the premises as noted above, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out any breach of the registration under which the respondents No. 4 and 5 have stated to have been operating. Nor the petitioner has been successful to show that the respondents No. 4 and 5 have been doing any unauthorized Act. No provision has been pressed to show that in the same area two or more Cable TV Network Operators cannot provide service to the subscribers. Nor the petitioner has been successful to show that the respondents No. 4 and 5 have been doing any unauthorized Act. No provision has been pressed to show that in the same area two or more Cable TV Network Operators cannot provide service to the subscribers. It is on the basis on the assessment fed by the authorized officer, the registering authority issues the registration certificate under the said act. 13. This writ petition is entirely frivolous. Mechanism for effective redress of any grievance relating to the Cable Television Network or its operation has been in the Act. There exists an appellate provision to make the Act a complete Code in itself. Having held so, this writ petition stands dismissed. Interim order as passed earlier shall stands vacated. No order as to costs.