1999 Supreme(AP) 1074

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.R.LAKSHAMANAN, S.SANKARASUBBAN
S.Rajeev, N.Paravoor - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Decided On : 11-23-99

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Articles 14 , 21 , 39 and 19 - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Section 7 - Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 24 - Section 25 - Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995 - Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 - Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 - Petitioner is an Advocate on rolls of Kerala Bar Council, who is practising in this Court and in other Courts and Tribunals - He applied for a new telephone connection within territorial jurisdiction of Parur Telephone Exchange - He made a representation explaining hardships faced by him due to lack of telephone connection at his office and requested to give new telephone connection to petitioner at his office on a priority basis considering his profession as a lawyer - He also stated in representation that he had obtained telephone connection at his house in ordinary category - Representation is marked as - sub-Divisional Engineer, Department of telecommunications, North Paravoor sent a reply to representation informing petitioner that for getting a new telephone connection on priority basis by including his name in Non-OYT Category, petitioner should not have a phone connection either at his office or at his residence and since petitioner has a telephone at his residence, he is not eligible for special category registration - Reply is produced - It is useful to reproduce communication - sub New Phone - Kindly refer to letter cited above - It is informed that Advocates who do not have facility of phone either at office or residence are eligible - Since you have a telephone at residence you are not eligible for special cat - regn - Yours faithfully - Petitioner, on enquiry, was given to understand that 2nd respondent, vide instructions circulated to all Chief General managers, Telecom Circle/telegrams under letter formulated a scheme for including advocates in Non-OYT Category with many pre-conditions - Copy of above communication is produced and marked as which reads - Inclusion of Advocates in Non-OYT/special Category for provision of New Telephone -policy - Reg - It has been decided to include advocate in Non/oyt/spl - Category for provision of New telephone connection subject to fulfilment of following conditions - That Advocates should have a minimum of five years standing at Bar or must be an Income-tax assessee for past two years as on date of application provided - He/she does not have facility of phone either at office or residence on date of application for telephone connection He/her close relations viz - , wife/ husband, son, unmarried daughter residing in same house are not already having a telephone connection - If he/she is already having more than one office and facility of phone is already existing in any area of office/residence, he/she will not be eligible to be included in this category - These instructions will come into force with immediate effect - it is submitted that ext - P-5 stipulates that if an Advocate does not have a minimum of five years practice or alternatively, if he is not an income-tax assessee for past two years as on date of application he cannot be included in Non-OYT Category for providing new telephone connection and hence, cannot be considered to be a fair or reasonable or judicial exercise of power by 2nd respondent - He further submitted that such classification denies privileges of special category to advocates who have less than two years practice even though he became an income-tax assessee after enrolment as advocate - Impugned instructions have also been reflected in telephone directory - It is pointed out by that among special categories, only against advocates such pre-conditions have been stipulated - Relevant page of telephone directory issued by department is produced relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder – Held , AN analysis of telephone allotment rules along with guidelines issued by department for all these years show that allotment rules and guidelines have been frequently and elaborately amended from time to time by department in accordance with exigencies of situation - It is pertinent to note that said rules are merely administrative instructions and do not have statutory force as they have not been promulgated in exercise of powers - In fact in P - R - Prasad and others vs - Union of India Division Bench has mentioned importance of profession of Advocates, which is linked with life of public and national interest, while considering question of inclusion of Advocates in Non-OYT Category - IT may be mentioned that so far as existing telephone connections which have been provided pursuant to interim directions of this Court are concerned, they may be continued to operate and department shall treat same as one provided pursuant to order of this court - In instant case, we are told that it has already been provided to applicant - advancement of science and technology in basic human life has changed very concept of a telephone from status of a mere luxury to status of an essential amenity - In this age of technological advances and fast development, when global dissemination of knowledge and information is done in seconds, Telegraph Department is expected to rise from their slumber and act in consonance with needs of changing society - Clinging to rules and conditions as pre-requisities for giving telephone facilities is not only archaic but otiose - Department has to keep pace with vast developing and changing scenario - Court conclude this judgment with hope that department will do away with such archaic rules in order to facilitate lives of members of society and treating granting of telephone as an essential service to all without any discrimination, on mere asking or applying for a telephone within a reasonable time, which is an absolute necessity for day to day life of a lawyer a litigant and all other professions, institutions etc - Writ Petition is allowed