K K KURUVILA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are petitions by two different petitioners who were given telephone connections by the telegraph authorities within a 'local area originally demarcated as included within a radius of five miles from the Telephone Exchange, and who, by reason of the reduction of the local area to one within a radius of five kilometres from the Telephone Exchange have been prejudicially affected in regard to the charges payable by them for the use of the telephones. This difference arises by reason of the fact that under the provisions of the statute, those within the 'local area' are liable to pay charges at more favourable rates than those outside the local area. As a result of this variation of local area the petitioners in these two cases ceased to be within the local area and therefore were liable to pay the telephone charges at the increased rates cm the ground of their being persons outside the local area.

(2.) Section 7 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 in so far as it is relevant reads:-

(3.) The petitioners objection is that the local area cannot be changed by the authorities concerned under the provisions ot the statute and the Rules; and even if it can be, the same can be done only after notice to the petitioners and alter affording them opportunities for explanation. The petitioners' counsel stressed that there was no provision under the Act or the Rules for variation oi a local area. But the very decision on which the petitioners rely, and which the petitioner's counsel very fairly brought to my notice, viz,, in A. Sriramareddy v. The District Manager, Telephones, Hyderabad, AIR 1971 Andn Pra 166 recognizes the requisite power. Therein it was ruled that having regard to the definition of 'local area contained in the Telegraph Rules, the telegraph authority which has power to initially determine and declare a local area within the meaning of Rule 2 (w) of the Rules is also empowered to vary the local area from time to time. Even if there is no express provision in the Act and the Rules for varying the local area, it seems to me that from the power to initially declare a local area there should be a power to cancel, modify or vary the same. This is clear at least on the strenght of the provisions of the General Glauses Act. I cannot, therefore, accept the contention of the petitioners that there is no power at all for the telegraph authority to vary the limits of the local area as defined by Rule 2 (w) of the Rules.