P M MOHAMED ALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an Advocate residing at Alwaye, applied in 1968 for telephone connection for his use. His application was registered in the waiting list of the Alwaye Telephone Exchange and an endorsement evidenced by Ext. P1, dated 29-1-1968 was issued to him. He continued to be in the waiting list even in 1971. It is alleged that some applications received after that date have been considered and telephone connection given to the applicants under cover of certain general executive instructions issued by the Telegraph Authority. As per these instructions the applicants have been classified into different categories and certain categories have been given priority. The copy of the instruction is produced in this case as Ext. P2. The main attack of the petitioner is that these executive instructions for categorisation of the applications are unauthorised and illegal. The continuance of this categorisation is a hindrance to the persons like the petitioner for getting telephone connection on the basis of priority of applications. Therefore, the petitioner has sought for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order quashing Ext. P2 instructions and for the issue of a writ of mandamus or order to forbear the respondents from enforcing Ext. P2 so far as the petitioner is concerned and to consider his application on the basis of priority alone. The petitioner further seeks to declare that Ext. P2 instruction is ultra vires of the powers of the Telegraph Act.

(2.) On behalf of the respondents, the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs Trichur Division, has filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the petitioner could not be given telephone connection because there are 21 applicants above the petitioner in the waiting list in the Alwaye - Parur route beyond Desom junction. Some of them are waiting for connection from 1965. Technically also these connections are not feasible for want of underground cable pairs in the route. A few connections have been provided In the Alwaye town area where cable pairs are available skipping over the claim of the petitioner as well as other non feasible connections. It is further contended that of the total number of telephone connections usually provided for, a certain percentage is set apart for applicants who have agreed to pay for the telephone on an ownership basis. A certain percentage is set apart for persons included under special category and the rest among whom the applicant comes are given the balance. The applicants under each category are arranged in the order of priority and they are provided telephone connection on the basis of the availability of cable pairs on the route where they reside or carry on business. This procedure is followed on the basis of the instructions issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Communications. These instructions form part of the prescribed application form in which those who want to get telephone connection have to apply. The petitioner made an application in this form. The instructions to categorise the applicants in various categories referred to above are not in violation of any of the sections or rules of the Telegraph Act and they are not in any way discriminatory or violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. On these grounds the respondents oppose the original petition.

(3.) Before noticing the contentions raised by the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Telegraph Act and the rules under which telephone connection is provided for to various applicants. 'Telegraph' is defined in S.3(1) to mean--