RAJEEV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. T. Ravi Kumar for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ramakumar, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, for the respondents. We al so heard Mr. John Varghese, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, who appeared for the respondents in O. P. No. 6115 of 1997, which is also on the same subject matter.

(2.) THE petitioner is an Advocate on the rolls of the kerala Bar Council, who is practicing in this Court and in other courts and tribunals. He applied for a new telephone connection within the territorial jurisdiction of Parur Telephone Exchange in 1997. He made a representation on 13. 2. 1997 explaining the hardships faced by him due to the lack of telephone connection at his office and requested to give a new telephone connection to the petitioner at his office on a priority basis considering his profession as a lawyer. He also stated in the representation that he had obtained telephone connection at his house in the ordinary category. THE representation is marked as Ext. P3. THE Sub Divisional Engineer, Department of Telecommunications, north Paravoor sent a reply to Ext. P3 representation informing the petitioner that for getting a new telephone connection on priority basis by including his name in the Non-O YT (Special) category, the petitioner should not have a phone connection either at his office or at his residence and since the petitioner has a telephone at his residence, he is not eligible for special category registration. THE reply is produced as Ext. P4. It is useful to reproduce Ext. P4 communication. "subject: New Phone coon, under spl cat. reg. Ref: your letter dated 2

(3.) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents by the Sub-Divisional Engineer (Legal) Telecom working under the 3rd respondent. The grounds urged in the counter affidavit with regard to the unsustainability of the claim of the petitioner are as under: a) The conditions laid down in Ext. P5 are reasonable and has direct connection to the object sought to be achieved. Among the advocates, certain standards are prescribed to be eligible for out of turn allotments. The standing in the bar, absence of facilities of telephone in anyplace, etc. , which are all relevant for the grant of telephone connection, have been included in the new order, none of which are amenable to attack as violative of arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. b) The conditions imposed for out of turn allotment based on the standing in the bar, assessment to income-tax, etc. will not amount to violation of the right to occupation or the right to carry on the profession as a lawyer. Those conditions are absolutely reasonable and are required in the interest of the State. c) A telephone connection is needed to an Advocate who is in active practice. If he is in active practice, ordinarily he will be an assessee to income-tax and hence, all the conditions in Ext. P5 are perfectly legal, and are intended to give a special consideration to advocates in the matter of facilitating new connections. According to counsel, there is no violation of any of the fundamental rights of the petitioner or any of the legal practitioners. According to him, it will not be practicable or feasible to extend the special category status to all the legal practitioners as soon as they are enrolled, irrespective of whether they are active practitioners or merely enrolled.