K CHANNAPPA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point for consideration is whether the respondents are justified in demanding additional security deposit from the petitioners without an opportunity of hearing.

(2.) Rule 445 of the Indian Telegraph Rules provides:-

(3.) It is no doubt true that Rule 445 has the force of law. But the question is whether the Telegraph Authority is justified in enhancing the security deposit and that too after a lapse of 5 years and increase the burden on the consumer or the subscriber without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the subscriber so that possibilities of arbitrariness in increasing the security deposit are eliminated. If the Telegraph Authority enjoys an unfettered power of demanding and collecting increased security deposits from time to time from the subscribers, it is reasonably probable that on account of exercise of unfettered power the subscribers would be put to undue and unjustified burden. Whether the enhancement of the security deposit from time to time is reasonable and fair is a point to be considered. In order to decide whether it is reasonable and fair, it is necessary bearing in mind the principles of natural justice that the subscriber should be heard or at least have a say in the matter. Otherwise, on the one hand, the right of the subscriber to be heard is jeopardized and on the other arbitrary and unbridled power would be in the hands of the Telegraph Authority. The circumstances and reasons in support of the demand are not clearly forthcoming from the impugned orders and notices either in regard to the alleged insufficiency or otherwise. Viewed from these angles since there is a reasonable probability of wrong exercise of power which would affect the rights of the subscribers, I am of the opinion that the demand made by the Telegraph Authority calling upon the petitioners unilaterally to deposit additional security deposit and other charges is violative of rules of natural justice.