MANI VARGHESE Vs. REGIONAL CONTROLLER T T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a director of M/s. Synthite Industrial Chemicals Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.The company was having its office and manufacturing unit at Kadayirippu, a place about 3 Kms. off Kolencherry. They have obtained the telex service from the Department of Tele communications. The said application was submitted in accordance with the provisions contained in Part 9 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1959. They made the necessary deposits and executed an agreement with the Department. The telex facility was installed in the petitioner's office at Kadayirippu on 24-12-1985 after depositing necessary deposit and the rental for the sum calculated under R.519 of the Indian Telegraph Rules. It is the case of the petitioner that there were certain complaints regarding the defect in the facility provided and as a result of the defects, he could not make use of the facilities provided by the Department in its full extent. Thereafter, as per Ext. P4 bill dated 21-5-1988, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 32,477/- towards the enhanced rent for the facilities provided to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that after payment of the amount as per Ext. P4, he was served with another bill, . Ext. P5 dated 11-5-1989 wherein the rent for the facility given to the petitioner is shown as Rs.36,750/-. The petitioner complained about the arbitrary increase in the rent. The increased rent was demanded from 1-8-1988 onwards. Thereafter, as per Ext. P6 bill dated 27-2-1989, the Department demanded arrears of rent payable by the petitioner as per the enhanced rent for the telex facility for the period from 1-8-1988 to 31-5-1989. The said amount was paid as per Ext. P7 receipt by the petitioner under threat of disconnection of the facility. It is the case of the petitioner that Exts. P5 and P6 bills are arbitrary and issued in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and the enhancement has been made without any notice to the petitioner or hearing the petitioner. The increase in the rental as per Exts.P5 . and P6 had been effected pursuant to an amendment to R.519 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, a copy Of which is produced as Ext. P8. The petitioner challenges the validity of Exts.P5, P6 and the provisions contained in Ext. P8. According to the petitioner, the increase in the rent for the telex facility provided to the petitioner is illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Art.14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction or order to refund the amount collected from the petitioner evidenced by Ext. P7 receipt and for consequential relief.

(2.) On notice, on behalf of the 2nd respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed where the Department also agreed that the petitioner had applied for a long distance telex communication in the year 1985 from the Ernakulam Telex Exchange to the business premises of the petitioner Company at Kolenchery. Ordinarily, telephone or telex communication to the premises falling within the local area of (5 k.ms. of radial distance from the particular exchange)of a telephone exchange or telex exchange are given from that particular exchange. Subscribers located outside the local area are treated as long distance subscribers. The rental for the connections provided within the local area of an exchange is charged at the standard rate whereas rental for a long distance connection is charged as rental for a connection with the local area plus additional charge based on the actual distance beyond the local area to the subscriber's premises. The premises to which the petitioner applied for connection is at a distance of 27 kms. beyond the local area of the Ernakulam Telephone Exchange. The petitioner has agreed to the terms and conditions regarding the rent fixed by the Department and he has executed a hiring contract with the Department and the relationship with the Department and the subscriber is based on this hiring contract and the Indian Telegraph Rules According to the agreement, he has agreed to pay the rental and other charges as per the Indian Telegraph Rules as amended/revised from time to time. It is the case of the respondent that the bills Exts.P5 and P6 were issued to the petitioner in accordance with the amended rates prescribed under the Rules and therefore, there is no arbitraryness or illegality in issuing the bills or demanding the enhanced rent. The respondent further states in the counter affidavit that as per Ext. P8 notification (Ext.R2(a) produced by the respondents) dated 26-7-1988, the Government of India revised the tariff for telecommunication facilities with effect from 1-8-1988 and the bills in question were issued based on the amended tariff prescribed under the revised tariff notification evidenced by Ext. P8. It is also the case of the respondent that the petitioner was informed when he complained about the increase in the rent for the telex facility provided to him that in case the petitioner is not interested to continue the present arrangement and to pay the enhanced revised rate as per Ext. P8, he can request to close the facilities from the Ernakulam Exchange and apply for the facility from Kolenchery Exchange. This communication is produced by the respondent as Ext.R2(b) dated 16-11-1988. It is the case of the respondent that the bills Exts.P5 and P6 are issued in accordance with the revised rates as per Ext. P8 and therefore, there is absolutely no justification for the, petitioner to complain about the increase in the rental for the telex facility given to him.

(3.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the Departmental authorities have jurisdiction or authority to increase the rental for the facilities provided to the subscriber under the Indian Telegraphs Act and the Rules framed thereunder and if so, whether the demand made as per Exts.P5 and P6 is in any way arbitrary, illegal or without jurisdiction.