B PANDURANGA REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of writ petitions is the third attempt by the Members of the legal profession to enter Non-OYT Special Category specified under the Telephone Amendment Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). For efficient functioning of the scheme to provide facility of telephone speedily, the applicants are calssified by the respondents in two categories: (1) OYT (own your telephone) category; and (2) Non-OYT category. Non-OYT category is subdivided into two categories; (a) Non-OYT Special Category and (b) Non-OYT General Category. The allotment of telephones among these categories, is as follows : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_119_APLJ2_1994Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) in this batch of writ petitions we are concerned with Non-OYT Special Category. Rule 2.4 of the Rules which are non-statutory, enumerates various person which are included in this category. This rule has been amended from time to time adding further categories by executive instructions.

(3.) The Members of the legal profession made their first attempt for entering into the Non-OYT Special Category by filing W.P. No. 1326 of 1986 and batch. During the pendency of that batch of writ petitions, some of them secured telephone connections by virtue of the interim directions of this Court. On June 02, 1987 a Division Bench of this Court disposed of those writ petitions by issuing directions to the respondents to include the names of the petitioners therein in Non-OYT Special Category for giving telephone connections; in view of the fact that that batch was not contested on merits, the Division Bench made it clear that its judgment might not be taken as a precedent in future cases. The second attempt was when they filed writ petitions 5552 of 1989 and batch - P.R. Prasad & Others, Advocates and Advocates Associations vs. Unions of India (1) 1991 (1) ALT 528 (for short Prasad's case). The respondents contested those writ petitions taking the plea that it is not only the importance of the profession in general that counts, but the profession must be directly linked with life of public and national interest. On December 28, 1990 a Division Bench of this Court dispoed of that batch of writ petitions holding that it was necessary that the cases of the Advocates for inclusion in the Non-OYT Special Category should be considered by the authorities concerned and a decision be taken with due promptitude, in any case not beyond the period of three months from that day in the changed context of circumstances where there had been a phenominal expansion of the capacity of the Telephone Exchange and in view of the fact that the profession of the Advocates also had come to play increasingly a more active part in the life of the public and the nation as such.