Back
1973 Supreme(Del) 85
High Court Of Delhi
ROOP LAL MAKKAR - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 1209 of 1972
Decided On : 03/22/1973
J.S.Arora, M.C.BHANDARE, S.S.Chadha, Y.K.SABHARVAL
The expression "public emergency" in section 5(1) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885, includes not only physical emergencies like war or pestilence, but also economic emergencies like the continued rise in prices of essential commodities.
Headnote:
TELEGRAPH ACT - SECTION 5(1) - PUBLIC EMERGENCY - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE - TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBER - LICENSEE - DISTINCTION - TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF TELEPHONE - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the order passed by the Administrator under section 5(1) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885, taking temporary possession of the telephones installed in their names in various rooms of Coronation Hotel Building, Fatehpuri, Delhi, on the ground that the order was illegal and contrary to law.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned order was valid and the Administrator was justified in taking temporary possession of the telephones under section 5(1) of the Act. The Court found that there was a public emergency due to the continued rise in prices of commodities essential to the life of the community, and that the Administrator was satisfied that it was necessary and expedient to take temporary possession of the telephones in order to prevent the illegal forward trading in banned commodities, which was contributing to the rise in prices.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Administrator under section 5(1) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885, was valid and legal. 2. Whether there was a public emergency justifying the Administrator's action under section 5(1) of the Act. 3. Whether the Administrator was justified in taking temporary possession of the telephones in order to prevent illegal forward trading in banned commodities.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the expression "public emergency" in section 5(1) of the Act to include not only physical emergencies like war or pestilence, but also economic emergencies like the continued rise in prices of essential commodities. 2. The Court found that there was a public emergency due to the continued rise in prices of commodities essential to the life of the community, and that the Administrator was satisfied that it was necessary and expedient to take temporary possession of the telephones in order to prevent the illegal forward trading in banned commodities, which was contributing to the rise in prices. 3. The Court held that the Administrator was justified in taking temporary possession of the telephones in order to prevent illegal forward trading in banned commodities, as this was a legitimate exercise of the power conferred by section 5(1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned orders in C. Ws. 1209/72 and 1253/72, 1254/72 and 1290/72, and directed the respondents to restore the telephone instruments to the premises of the petitioners within two weeks from the date of the order.
( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writs 1209/72, 1253/72, 1254/72 and 1290/72. Petitioners in all these petitions have assailed the order dated November 27, 1972/december 4, 1972, passed by the Administrator under section 5 (1) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 (hereafter called "the Act") taking over temporary possession of the telephones installed in their names in various rooms of Coronation Hotel Building, Fatehpuri, Delhi. The questions involved in all the petitions being similar, they were heard together. For purposes of this order, facts of civil writ petition No. 1209/72 may be stated :
"roop Lal Makkar, petitioner in C. W. 1209/72 carries on business of brokerage in vegetable oil and cloth. He is also the Vice Chairman of Om Oils and Oilseeds Exchange Ltd. , which owns the building known as coronation Hotel Building, Fatehpuri, Delhi-6 . He had two telephone connections under own Your Telephone Scheme , with telephone Nos. : 262306 and 269983. Both the telephones were installed in room No. 21 of the aforesaid building. On November 28, 1972 at about 12. 30 P. M. respondent No. 4. A. K. Singh, Superintendent of Police, North District. Delhi came to the premises of the petitioner and disconnected both the telephones on the basis of the order dated November 27, 1972 passed by the Administrator under section 5 (1) of the Act. "
( 2 ) THE petitioner contends that this order is illegal and contrary to law for reasons stated in the petition and may, therefore, be quashed and order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to restore possession of both the telephones. He has further prayed that section 5 of the Act be declared ultra vires of Articles 14, 19 (l) (f) and (g) and 31 of the Constitution of India. The latter prayer, however, was not pressed at the time of arguments.
( 3 ) RESPONDENTS to the petition are Delhi Administration, Administrator Delhi, Union of India and A. K. Singh as respondents 1 to 4 respectively.
( 4 ) THE petition is contested. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner, amongst others, practised on a large scale, through the telephones aforesaid, illegal forward trading (satta) in agricultural commodities thereby adversely affecting prices of the supplies essential to the lives of the community. The Administrator, it is stated, was satisfied that the continuation of this forward trading was prejudicial to the public interest and there was a public emergency calling for action under section 5 (1) of the Act. Along with an earlier affidavit filed in answer to the show-cause notice, the respondents placed on record copy of a confidential D. O. letter dated November 17, 1972 from the Director, Forward Markets Commission to Delhi Administration complaining that according to information received by the Forward Trade Commission and investigated by them, illegal forward trading in banned commodities was being indulged in with the help of the telephones, the particulars of which were enclosed with the D. O. These particulars, according to another D. O. of the same date from the Superintendent of Police to Delhi Administration, were obtained as a result of raid conducted by the representatives of the Forward Trade Commission, the Delhi Police and Telephones. The respondents also filed with this affidavit a copy of the note on illegal forward trading in certain banned agricultural commodities and the action taken by the police in this regard. The note. amongst others, stated that so far 45 criminal cases under Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act had been registered and proceedings in court against persons responsible for the infringement had been taken but because of lacunae in the law on the subject this was not sufficient to prevent the offenders from continuing their illegal trading. The note stated that these persons, to escape detection, had adopted code numbers for various banned commodities to carry on the illegal trading. This trad
