AMAN DAHIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the seriatim seniority of the telephone subscriber in the list maintained for the grant of out of turn priority basis connections can be arbitrarily over-ridden by the Department- is the core question in this complaint.

(2.) The complainant Mr. Aman Dahiya is a practicing advocate of the High Court. Admittedly he was sanctioned a telephone connection on out of turn priority basis by the Director General, Tele-communication way back on the 23rd of October, 1989 vide Annexure C-l. As usual this connection was to be provided subject to technical feasibility. It is the complainant's case that after the aforesaid date he repeatedly approached the District Manager and the Commercial Officer of the Telephone Department at Chandigarh for the release of the aforesaid connection, but they procrastinated in doing so. In January 1990 the complainant alongwith a colleague Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate also met Mr. N. L. Sahi, the then District Manager of Telephones and inter-alia impressed upon him the urgency of getting the connection because the complainant wanted to contest the bar council elections which were to be held in October 1990. It is the case that Mr. Sahi told him that because the complainant was residing in Sector 11 of Panchkula which was a technically non-feasible area, the connection could not be given to him and assured him that if he moves to some feasible sector in Panchkula the same would be installed there soon after his shifting.

(3.) According to the complainant when he shifted to the High Court in 1982, he rented house No.229 in Sector 11, Panchkula for a somewhat modest rent of Rs.550.00 per month with an assurance from the landlord (who was a Government employee) that he would not get the same vacated till the date of his retirement provided the rent was suitably enhanced meanwhile. However, in view of the alleged assurance given by the District Manager, Telephones the complainant forthwith vacated that house and rented house No.22 in Sector 16, Panchkula (in which he shifted on the 1st of March, 1990) on a much higher rent at Rs.2,300.00 only because the said sector was a feasible area in which he expected to get the telephone connection forthwith. After shifting, the complainant informed the Department and applied for the installation of the telephone at the aforesaid address vide his letter dated the 9th of March, 1990. It is the complainant's grievances that despite all this and his repeated protestations the telephone was not released to him and he was compelled to give a legal notice to the Department on the 28th of January, 1990 vide Annexure C-2 to which a reply was received vide Annexure C-3. The complainant's allegation is that his stand in the legal notice was hardly controverted because admittedly Sector 16, Panchkula was a feasible area and meanwhile the Telephone Department has released a number of connections to persons who were far below him in the list maintained for out of turn priority basis sanctions and who had been accorded such sanctions much later than the 23rd of October, 1989 when his case was sanctioned. It is alleged that the opposite parties had intentionally and even maliciously over-ridden the complainant's claim for the release of the telephone connection on the out of turn priority basis in favor of persons far junior to him in the list admittedly maintained, therefor and further had even released ordinary connections earlier than the one given to him later.