Back
High Court Of Delhi
OM OIL AND OILSIDS EXCHANGE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 156 of 1976
Decided On : 01/19/1977
TELEPHONE CONNECTION - DISCONNECTION - ARBITRARY EXECUTIVE ACTION - JUSTICIABILITY - RULE OF LAW - EMERGENCY - SUSPENSION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - RELIEF.
Fact of the Case:
Telephone connections were disconnected under Rule 422 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, pursuant to an order made by the Administrator of Delhi under Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The orders were challenged and quashed by the Delhi High Court, but the decision was reversed on appeal. The Supreme Court subsequently quashed the impugned orders, holding that they were beyond the scope of Rule 422. The petitioners, whose telephone connections had been disconnected, filed petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking restoration of their connections.
Finding of the Court:
1. The petitions were maintainable, as the dispute between the parties was not an ordinary dispute between a subscriber and the authorities, but a dispute with regard to the competence of the authorities to invoke a certain Rule for the purpose of affecting disconnection of the telephones. 2. The petitions were not belated, as the delay in filing the petitions was due to the pendency of proceedings involving the validity of the common orders, and the petitioners were justified in awaiting the outcome of the proceedings. 3. The impugned orders were arbitrary executive action and were justiciable, as the declaration of emergency and the suspension of the fundamental rights did not abrogate the Rule of Law. 4. The petitioners were entitled to the relief claimed, but the supervening circumstances, such as the allotment of the disconnected connections to other subscribers and the shortage of equipment and material, had to be taken into account in awarding relief.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitions were maintainable, considering the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 7b of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 2. Whether the petitions were belated, considering the delay in filing the petitions and the allotment of the disconnected connections to other subscribers. 3. Whether the impugned orders were justiciable, considering the declaration of emergency and the suspension of the fundamental rights. 4. The extent of relief to be granted to the petitioners, considering the supervening circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The existence of an alternative remedy under Section 7b of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, does not bar the maintainability of the petitions, as the dispute between the parties was not an ordinary dispute between a subscriber and the authorities, but a dispute with regard to the competence of the authorities to invoke a certain Rule for the purpose of affecting disconnection of the telephones. 2. The petitions were not belated, as the delay in filing the petitions was due to the pendency of proceedings involving the validity of the common orders, and the petitioners were justified in awaiting the outcome of the proceedings. 3. The impugned orders were arbitrary executive action and were justiciable, as the declaration of emergency and the suspension of the fundamental rights did not abrogate the Rule of Law. 4. The petitioners were entitled to the relief claimed, but the supervening circumstances, such as the allotment of the disconnected connections to other subscribers and the shortage of equipment and material, had to be taken into account in awarding relief.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed. The impugned orders were quashed, and the telephone connections were directed to be restored to the petitioners if not already allotted to other subscribers. If the connections had already been allotted, fresh connections would be allotted to the petitioners on a priority basis, with liberty to have immediate connections in areas where such connections were available.
( 1 ) THESE petitions un,der Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the subscribers of a number of telephone connections, inter alia, raise questions as to whether the petitions are maintainable during the continuance of the emergency, and, if so, whether the petitions are belated and, therefore, disentitle the petitioners to the relief to which they are otherwise entitled by virtue of the decision on the merits of the controversy by the Supreme Court.
( 2 ) THE petitions were filed in the following circumstances. By an order made by the Administrator of Delhi on November 27, 1972 under Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short, the Act) the Superintendent of Police was authorised to take temporary possession of certain specified telephones installed in the various rooms and cabins of the building known as Coronation Hotel, Fatehpuri, Delhi. The order was said to be a sequel to the satisfaction of the Administrator that illegal forward trading in agricultural commodity was going on on a large scale, through the instrumentality of these telephones, which was adversely affecting the price of goods considered essential to the life of the community. A similar order was made on December 4, 1972 and some more telephone connections were specified in it. Pursuant to these orders telephone instruments belonging to various persons including the petitioners, were physically removed from their premises by the Police. The orders were challenged by a number of persons in and were quashed by this Court by an order of March 22, 1973 and all the instruments were restored irrespective of whether the action had been challenged in the Court or not. It, however, appears that by two separate orders of November 28, 1972 and December 5, 1972, made by the General Manager, Delhi Telephones, under Rule 422 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 (or short, the Rules) the various telephones were disconnected. The orders were made with reference to the list of telephones which was supplied by the Delhi Administration to the General Manager. Some of the affected persons challenged the aforesaid orders of the General Manager and the impugned orders were quashed by a learned single Judge of this Court by an order made on September 28, 1973 while disposing of a number of petitions. The judgment was, however, reversed in appeal by an order of November 27, 1973. Some of the petitioners took the matter to the Supreme Court and their contention that the impugned orders were beyond the scope of Rule 422 of the Rules prevailed. By its judgment of December 17, 1975 in C. A. 1848 and 1849 of 1974, 1976 S. C. 789 (1), the impugned orders of the General Manager, Telephones, Delhi made on November 28, 1972 and December 5, 1972 were quashed and the respondents were directed to restore the telephone connections of the subscribers who were appellants before the Supreme Court. Pursuant to this judgement the telephone connections of the appellants before the Supreme Court and perhaps of some others who were parties to the proceedings in this Court were restored. The pleas of the petitioners, however, made soon after the judgment for their telephone connections being restored, were, however, repelled presumably because these subscribers were not party to the proceedings in the Supreme Court or in this Court even though all the telephones had been disconnected by the afotesaid two common orders. The General Manager, Telephones apparently took the view that the Supreme Court had directed restoration of the telephone connections of the appellants before it and no obligation was, therefore, cast on the General Manager to give effect to the order of the Supreme Court in relation to the others who, though affected by the impugned orders, had not challenged the same. That is how the present petitions were filed in February, 1976.
( 3 ) MRS. Shyamla Pappu, learned counsel for the Union, conceded at the outset that if these petitions were to be tried on t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
