ASHISH HANDA Vs. DISTRICT MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners of Civil Writ Petition No. 1338/91, as also of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3261 of 1991; 1174 of 1991 and 694 of 1991, have challenged the validity and legality of a scheme known as Tatkal (Immediate) Scheme for providing telephone connections as made and prescribed by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications and Department of Telecommunications dated 26th May, 1988 (Annexure R1), more by way of public interest litigation than to seek any individual benefits for themselves. Inasmuch as the scheme aforesaid is challenged on parity of the same reasoning in all the petitions, it would suffice, if the facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 1338 of 1991 alone are given.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is an Advocate practicing in this High Court whereas petitioner No. 2 is serving in Armed Forces. Petitioner No. 2 had booked a telephone in the year 1984 in the category known as 'Ordinary' by depositing a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and in the revised waiting list, he was allotted booking No. SEC. 34/CH/Genl./R/673. The need of the telephone by the petitioners is stated to be acute for various reasons, inclusive of the fact that their mother who is a patient of angina needs medical facilities and, as per nature of things such medical aid needs to be catered for immediately. Even though by standing in queue, the petitioners were waiting for their number to be allotted a telephone in 'Ordinary' category when they noticed an advertisement appearing in the Tribune and Indian Express dated January 13, 1991, vide which they had a chance to get a telephone connection within the fortnight, they heaved a sigh of relief. After a frustrating wait, time had come when the necessity of the telephone at their end could be fulfilled, even though at a huge cost of Rs. 30,000/-. The advertisement reference of which has been given above, provided registration on the basis of 'first come first served' by making applications on forms which were to be available on January 14, 1991, at the Head Office of the Commercial Officer (Telephones) alone. In their anxiety and utmost need to get the telephone connection, petitioner No. 1 went to the office of respondent No. 2 on the date fixed i.e. January 14, 1991. There, to his disappointment he found a massive crowd of 5,000 people which had thronged the office and that there were absolutely no arrangements for regulating the procedure for getting the application forms. The over crowding in the office virtually resulted into stampede and in the utter confusion that followed, the office of respondent No. 2 was shut down with the help of the police and no application forms were given to the petitioners and also scores of others who were present at that time. As per claim of the petitioners, an official of the respondents on January 14, 1991, announced that no application forms would be distributed and that the necessary clarification would appear in the Press on the following day. On the next day, however, no clarification appeared as promised by the department and on an enquiry, the petitioners came to know that only 100 applications were distributed to a selected few on totally extraneous grounds and on arbitrary basis by simply following the principle of pick and choose. The way and the manner the things had gone about on January 14, 1991, were high-lighted by the Press by reporting that "for about 100 telephones that the department will release under this scheme, thousands of people thronged the office for obtaining the necessary forms" and that "the department closed its grill gate to prevent the crowd from entering its office". The news item aforesaid was accompanied by a photograph which supports the reporting of the Press as has been indicated above. Only 100 application forms were distributed to the favourites of the department by following no procedure whatsoever. On the facts stated above, the case of the petitioners is that even though the scheme known as Tatkal Scheme as such may not be bad, ultra vires or arbitrary but the way and manner it has been worked by introducing the advertisement which in turn, fixes precedence on the basis of 'first come first served' has resulted into utter chaos. Such precedence in the wake of facts and circumstances of this case was fraught with arbitrariness and open to abuse.

(3.) This petition has been opposed by way of filing written statement on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by respondent No. 2, H.R. Sharma, Commercial Officer, Telephones, Chandigarh. In response to the main allegation of the petitioners, it has been stated in the written statement that only a limited number of application forms under the Tatkal Scheme for the release of total 105 connections in exchange area of Sector 34 and Sector 17 were to be delivered to the public on January 14, 1991, strictly on 'first come first served' basis as per the advertisement that appeared in the newspaper on January 13, 1991. However, since there were lot of desirous applicants yet only 160 application forms were sold strictly in accordance with queue and there was police arrangement to control the long queue. Insofar as the claim of the petitioners with regard to their booking in the 'Ordinary' category is concerned, it has been stated in the written statement that as per Tatkal Scheme issued by the department the petitioners had a right to convert the same into Tatkal Scheme and inasmuch as no steps were taken by them towards that direction, they cannot make any complaint in that regard.