N R GOPI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. B. Sahasranaman for the appellant and Mr. M. A. Mohamed Ashraf for the respondents.

(2.) The appellant was working as a STD-PCO Franchisee on the basis of the agreement executed by him from December, 1995 onwards. A licence was issued to him. He left for Kuwait for completing a project, which is expected to be completed by March, 2000. The STD-PCO during his absence from India was handled by his son Mr. Anup. He was making the payment of bills regularly and was signing all the documents for and on behalf of his father. While so, the respondents issued a letter under Exhibit P-1 stating that the notice sent by the respondents have returned stating that "the addressee left India" and, therefore, a notice was issued to him to show cause why the licence granted to him should not be withdrawn for the violation of the licence condition.

(3.) The appellant gave a reply, stating that his son is managing the booth and there is no violation of any agreement. Thereafter the 2nd respondent has passed an order terminating the licence granted to the appellant as per Ext. P-2. Aggrieved by the termination order, the appellant filed the Original Petition to quash Exhibit P-2 contending that when the appellant left for Kuwait, he has entrusted his son-Anup to run the booth and that his son was operating the booth thereafter and was making payments to the Department regularly and also receiving the commission due from the Department and that the licence granted by the Telegraph Authority under S.4(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act can be revoked only by the Central Government under S.8 of the Act since the power to revoke the licence vests in Central Government and not with the Telegraph Authority and that this power vested with the Central Government is not delegatable to the Telegraph Authority and, therefore. Exhibit P-2 order revoking the licence granted to the Franchisee is in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon him. It is also submitted that there is no condition imposed in the contract of franchisation that only the franchisee can be the operator and the agreement permits the engagement of operators and, therefore, there is no violation of contract as alleged. It is further contended that the appellant can do it through an agent and in this case the appellant has given his son the authority to operate the booth, which is not prohibited by law and hence there is no bar in conducting the booth by any person with authority.