( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Radhakrishna.

( 2 ) IN this writ petition this Court is called upon to decide whether an allottee of a STD booth under a scheme promulgated by the Telecommunication department can be termed as a subscriber and whether the Indian Telephone rules (hereinafter called as Rules) are applicable to him or not.

( 3 ) THE petitioner who is a licencee for STD booth No. 425126 at Vijayawada filed this Writ Petition questioning the action of the respondents in disconnecting the telephone without communicating the orders passed on the explanation submitted by him pursuant to the showcause notice given by them.

( 4 ) THE relevant facts of this case are that the respondents evolved a scheme of providing employment opportunities to the uneducated youth and physically handicapped etc. Under the scheme the persons selected have to enter into an agreement incorporating the terms and conditions of the licence. On allotment of STD booths commission will be paid to allottees slab-wise for the calls made from that telephone and allottee need not pay any rent as such for the installation and at the same time allottee is not allowed any free calls on the telephone. But the guidelines issued by the department did not provide any period for which licence will be given. The petitioner who seemed to be a physically handicapped person was selected by the Selection Committee for allotment of a STD booth No. 425126 to be installed at Shop No. ll, sri Brahmachari Matam Complex, Canal Road, Vijayawada. Initially the petitioner was allotted the booth for a period of two years and the licence period came to an end by 31-12-1994. Thereafter his licence period was extended by two more years i. e. , from 1-1-1995 to 31-12-1997. During the second term of licence period the respondent, in his proceedings P-26/std pt 425126 dated 18-9-1995, had issued a show cause notice, to explain within two days from the date of receipt of that letter, as to why the connection should not be disconnected without any further notice alleging that the telephone is being misused and the same is a clear breach of agreement and also in violation of Rule 427 of the Rules. Immediately, the petitioner submitted his explanation. It is not known whether the explanation submitted by the petitioner had been considered or not, and final orders passed, if any, were not communicated to the petitioner and ultimately the telephone connection was disconnected on 26-9-1995. Assailing the said action, the present writ petition was filed.

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that under Rule 2-PP of the Rules the petitioner should be treated as a subscriber and under Rule 421 of the rules the authorities are expected to give seven clear days notice before taking any action for disconnection of the telephone. In this case the petitioner was not only given two days time to submit his explanation, but final orders, if any, passed pursuant to the show cause notice dated 18-9-1995 after considering his explanation were not communicated to him. Hence, on both the grounds the order of the respondent is vitiated.

( 6 ) MR. D. KRISHNA Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent stated that the petitioner cannot be termed as a subscriber as he is only an agent of the department and he is being paid for managing departmental telephone and the terms and conditions of the licence are reduced into writing. Under Clause (26) of Rule 427 of the Rules the department is empowered to disconnect the telephone without giving any notice if it comes to its notice that the STD hirer has sublet the telephone to any other person. In support of his contention the Counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgments in K. A. S. Senthilnathan vs. Union of India and Union of India vs. Binani Consultants (P) Ltd. But these two cases cannot be an authority on the proposition raised by the respondent that the petitioner is only a licencee, but not a