A MALLA REDDY Vs. DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case where a physically handicapped person who was allotted telephone booth is forced to approach this Court for a direction to the authori ties to implement the same.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he applied for permission to Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad on 13-2-92 to setup booth at Government Dispensary, Khairatabad towards road leading to Meera Theatre. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad permitted on21-24992. On24-2-1992, heapplied to the telephone Department and was allotted connection after one year i.e., on 15-4-1993 vide allotment No.E. 6907. Butas there was encroachment by the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad through proceedings dt. 19-6-93 and 5-7-1993 wrote to the telephone department informing that the 3rd respondent has encroached on the site of the petitioner and that it is removing the encroachment and requested the telephones Department to disconnect the telephone connection as the 3rd respondent was given permission to erect a booth on the mint road.

(3.) Notice before admission was ordered on 27-8-1993. The 3rd respondent has filed his counter. Though the Central Government and Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad have taken time to file counters, they have not filed the same. The 3rd respondent in his counter says he is also a physically handicapped person and that he approached Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for permission to erect a booth at Khairatabad opposite the library and at the corner of the Mint compound road and the road towards municipal office and that his application was sanctioned by the telephone department on 17-3-92. It is also admitted in the counter that the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad has asked him to vacate the telephone booth and to hand-over possession and also had not renewed permission to run telephone booth. It is also stated that the telephone department disconnected his telephone on 4-2-1993 and his application for reconnection is still pend ing. The 3rd respondent has not filed any material papers. As it is admitted by the 3rd respondent that the Municipal Corporation authorities have not renewed permission to him to run the telephone booth and the telephone department has also disconnected the telephone and as the petitioner has obtained municipal permission and also renewal for 1993-94 and the telephone authorities have also issued allotment letter on 15-4-93, the Telephone Department is directed to provide telephone connection to the petitioner forthwith at Government Dispensary towards Meera theatre road, Khairatabad. This does not however prevent the municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the telephone department from considering the application of the 3rd respondent for installation of booth at Mint road in accordance with law. As the petitioner is constrained to file this petition d ue to the inaction of the telephone department which has failed to act inspite of reminders from the petitioner as well as from the Municipal Corporation and asitought not to have installed telephone connection in favour of 3rd respondent without verifying whether the Municipal Corporation has given permission to the 3rd respondent to run the booth or not, I allow the Writ Petition with costs payable by the 1st respondent. Advocate's fee Rs. 500/-.