LAWS(MAD)-1990-7-77

MADRAS TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBERS AND PUBLIC PROTECTION ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION MINISTER COMMUNICATION GOVT OF INDIA NEW DELHI

Decided On July 03, 1990
MADRAS TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBERS AND PUBLIC PROTECTION ASSOCIATION REP BY FOUNDER SECRETARY Appellant
V/S
UNION MINISTER, COMMUNICATION, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed W.P. 12187 of 1988 styling himself as the Founder Secretary of the Madras Telephone Subscribers and Public Protection Association. THE appellant filed the writ petition as a ?Public interrest petition? on behalf of the said Association. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the appellant filed some writ miscellaneous petitions claiming different reliefs. For the purpose of the present appeal, however, we have to notice that the appellant filed WMP, 18997 of 1989 seeking to clarify the order of the Court made in WMP. 14067 of 1989 on 16-S-1989 THE order which had been made by the Court in WMP. 14067 of 1989 was in respect of the interim relief sought for by the appellant inter alia restraining the chief General Manager, Telephones, Madras, from demanding and collecting the revised tariff rates from April 1988 from the members of the petitioner association and from claiming enhanced rent for accessories, etc. THE learned Judge noticed that the earlier petition filed, viz., WMP. 18181 of 1988 for the same relief had already been dismissed and instead of filing an appeal against that order, applicant has chosen to file the miscellaneous petition in WMP. 14067 of 1989 and that since the same was not maintainable, dismissed it. While seeking clarification of the order in WMP. 14067 of 1989, the appellant filed certain written arguments, and in effect again sought interim direction inter alia restraining the third respondent from demanding and collecting the revised tariff rates etc. from April 1988 from the members of the petitioner association.

(2.) THE learned single Judge by the order dated 23-3-1990 dismissed the writ miscellaneous petition by observing that the petitioner was not able to put forth any specific grievance of any member of his association and there was no merit in that petition.