P SRINIVASA RAO Vs. DISTRICT TELECOM MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the proposal of the 1 st respondent to set up additional STD booths in the market yard of Guntur. The petitioner is already having an STD booth in that place and according to the petitioner if another booth is set up in the same area without maintaining a considerable distance of half a kilometer as given in the memo No. 1684/31/93-2 MA dated 15 -12-1993 there will be unnecessary competition and the right to livelihood of the petitioner will be jeopardised. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Olga Tellis And Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others (1) AIR 1986 (1) SC 180 and submitted that the right to livelihood must also be adequate and if more STD booths are set up adjacent to each other, then the right given to the petitioner to eke out his livelihood will be wiped away. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, who was impleaded and who has been given another STD booth in the same market yard, submitted that there was enough traffic in the area and both of them could survive. Learned counsel for the Department pointed that for the period from 20-1-1996 to 26-2-1996 the total collections of the petitioner was Rs.26,168/- and his own commission was Rs.3732/- in addition to charges per call which came upto Rs.8000/-. Learned counsel for the Department submitted that because of the acute demand in the market yard the Department had to allot one more booth in the market yard which is of an area of 80 acres. The entire thrust of the petitioner's argument is only on the memo of the Government referred to above, which has suggested that a distance of half a kilometer should be kept between two booths. I am of the opinion that this guideline was issued in the case of public streets where the booths are kept in the margin of roads and there will be likelihood of congestion in the traffic. THIS cannot be a sort of mandatory injunction against setting up of more than one STD booth in an area where there is more demand from the public for making telephone calls. On the facts of this case where STD booths have been set up in the market area which is of an area of 80 acres, it cannot be said that the department cannot accede to the public demand for more than one STD booth. If the setting up of an additional STD booth isgoing to adversely affect the existing STD booth, the Department can see to it that the minimum guaranteed amount for each STD booth is maintained. In the present case, it appears that the calls made in the booth of the petitioner itself indicate that by setting up an additional booth, the interests of the petitioner will not be so adversely affected as to deprive him of the basic right of livelihood. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Department, whilepermitting additional STD both should not only keep in mind the adverse effect which will be faced by the existing STD booth, but it must also meet the needs of the public which is paramount. Looking at the matter in this view, I do not see any infirmity in the proposal of the 1 st respondent to give additional STD booth to the 3 rd respondent. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.