K A S SENTHILNATHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three batches of writ petitions have been filed by the STD/ PCO operators challenging the revision in the rates of commission payable for STD/ PCO operators. The first batch of writ petitions have been filed against the orders in No.6-1/90-PHB dated 2-5-1991. The second batch of writ petitions have been filed challenging the proceedings No. 131-13/91PHB dated 24-7-1993 and the third batch of writ petitions have been filed questioning the correctness of the proceedings No. 31-50/ 95 - PHB dated 26-12-1995.

(2.) For in the above writ petitions the respondents through their counsel Mr. R. Santhanam, learned Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel have filed a typed set of documents in W.P. No.3039/91 etc., batch (lst batch) wherein an analysis of the STD/ PCO commission rates for the relevant period has been given by way of a tabular statement.

(3.) Originally a distinction was maintained between the coin/ card operated machines and the private STD phones in justification of the different rates of commission, the reason being that in respect of coin/ card operated machines the investment is higher whereas in respect of the other type of privately attended STD phones the investment was very much lesser than the former. However, the said distinction between the coin/card operated machines and the privately attended STD phones was not continued from 1-6-1991 and earlier for a short duration between 1-9-1989 and 31-12-1989. However, the bulk franchise phones operators have mistakenly construed that the concession shown to coin/ card operated machines should also be applicable to them, irrespective of whether they possess coin/ card operated machines or not. Such a claim, according to the learned Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel, was unwarranted.