UNION OF INDIA Vs. JAI PRAKASH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1.

(2.) A brief reference to the factual position would suffice : Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court alleging that he was not granted permission to operate Gramin PCO and his prayer was that he should have been granted such permission. Appellants who were the respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition took the stand that according to the guidelines of the Ministry of Communication one Gramin PCO (described in the guidelines as Village Public Telephone, in short the VPT) already existing in the concerned village and, therefore, the prayer of the writ petitioner could not be accepted in view of the guidelines. The High Court by a cryptic non-reasoned order held that the conditions in the guidelines "appear to be arbitrary" and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution). Accordingly direction was granted to allot a VPT to the writ petitioner within the stipulated time.

(3.) Appellants have challenged the order on the ground that no reason has been indicated as to why the guidelines were found to be illegal/arbitrary under the National Communication Policy, 1994, Department of Telecommunication is providing VPT. One VPT is provided in a Revenue village. There are nearly 60,77,491 village in the country. By 31.3.1990, therefore, 3,40,640 villages, which, have been provided with VPTs, and remaining villages were to be provided VPTs progressively by March, 2002. In UP (Eastern) Telecom Circle, there are nearly 75,698 villages, out of which 29,970 villages have been provided with VPTs and rest about 45,000 villages were to be provided with VPTs. It is pointed out that after all the villages are provided with public telephones, additional PCOs can be provided depending upon technical feasibility and demand. The difference between VPT and PCO is that the call charges made from a VPT are less than those from PCO. Also the commission to the operative custodian of a VPT is higher than that payable to a PCO operator custodian. The commission is percentage of revenue depending on the call charges. It was also submitted that the department did not have adequate resources to provide more than one VPT in a village under the VPT programme. However, wherever technically feasible, second and subsequent public telephone can be provided which shall be at the cost of the applicant. Without indicating any reason as to how the guidelines were arbitrary, the High Court has issued the directions.