( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Mohan das n. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. v. chandrasekhara reddy, learned additional central government standing counsel for the respondents.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is running a lodge in the name and style of M/s. Sri durga lodge at shimoga. Admittedly, it consists of two separate buildings situated within the common compound and some of the rooms have been provided with telephone facility. Originally, the petitioner had only one telephone connection. But subsequently to provide telephone facility to the customers, the petitioner applied for 5 + 20 pbx which was sanctioned in its favour in the year 1975. In the said pbx, 9 extensions were internal, while the remaining 11 being located in the 2nd building were treated to be external extensions. It appears that due to increase in the rental value effected in the year 1987, the petitioner applied for a separate pbx for the second building also with 3 + 9 connections. To this proposal, the 2nd respondent is said to have advised the petitioner that in case the 2nd building which was situated in the same compound is inter-connected by a permanent corridor, all the extensions in the 2nd building could be treated as internal extensions and the two buildings will be treated to be as one. Now it is a matter of fact that the petitioner had connected the two buildings with a permanent corridor with 12 feet high wall. It is covered with plastic sheets on a steel framed cantilever projecting about 3 to 4 feet. The only issue involved in the present case is as to whether the corridor so erected connecting the two buildings should be treated as a permanent corridor making telephone extensions in the other building as internal extension or it is still to be treated as a temporary corridor. Since the department without giving an opportunity of being heard in the matter had raised bills by treating the extensions in the two buildings as external, the petitioner challenged those bills in the case of M/s. Sri durga lodge, shimoga v director of telecommunications, mangalore and others, (Annexure-Q) with the following directions:"9. In the result this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned demand notices dated 18-3-1991 and 20-3-1991 annexures-a and c issued by the 3rd respondent are quashed and by a mandamus the 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 6-5-1991 Annexure-F to the writ petition before raising any fresh demand or ordering any disconnection of the telephone lines provided to it. The first respondent shall while disposing of the representation give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner who shall continue to pay the current dues billed against it regularly treating the extensions to be internal in nature till such time the entire controversy is decided by the first respondent. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs".

( 3 ) CONSEQUENT upon the said direction the matter was heard by the respondent-telephone district manager and by some what a cryptic order dated 18-12-1996 (Annexure-A) he has come to the conclusion that 29 extensions provided in the rear building (blocks c and d) be treated as external extensions with effect from 22-3-1987 and charged accordingly. In this Order, the respondent district manager has clearly admitted that on inspection conducted on 20-12-1989 by the officer engineering, shimoga, the nature of the corridor as referred to above was in- fact found, but except recording the finding as above, he has not set out any reason for not treating the corridor as permanent. It is the common case of the parties that the expression 'permanent corridor' has not been defined either under the Telegraph Act or statutory rules framed thereunder. Therefore, the meaning of the expression 'permanent corridor' has to be taken in the sense it is understood in the common parlance.

( 4 ) IN the case of