The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputes purely contractual in nature and not involving a public function are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The existence of an arbitration clause in the contract further supports the dismissal of the writ petition.

N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. All the petitioner companies, by means of the present petition and thereby invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus or direction to restrain the respondents from disconnecting the telecommunication services which are provided by the second and third respondent and their affiliates to the petitioners herein, who are the operators, for the services of Direct Inward Dialing (DID), Group Electronic Private Automatic Branch Exchange (EPBX) provided by the second respondent-licencee company. The second respondent who is Chief Executive Officer of Reliance Communications Limited and the third respondent who is Chief Executive Officer of the Gujarat Circle of the same company, as per the say of the petitioners, were set to disconnect the said services from 10th March, 2016 without giving prior intimation in writing. Therefore the present petition and this prayer.

2. Another prayer which was incorporated by amending the petition was for direction against the first respondent-Union of India through Secretary, Department of Telecom, Ministry of Communications, to order the second and third respondents to continue the telecommunication services provided by them to the petitioners and for further direction to restrain the said second and third private respondents from disconnecting the services in question. The other prayers were interim prayers. Thus in the originally initiated petition, writ was prayed against second and third respondent, whereas by amendment, additionally, it was prayed for against the first respondent-Union of India also.

2.1. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed Civil Application No. 3732 of 2016 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacating the ex-parte interim relief granted by this Court. In course of hearing of the said Civil Application on 26th April, 2016, learned counsels appearing for both the sides agreed and requested to take up the main matter for final consideration. On 02nd May, 2016 learned advocates for the parties were heard in extenso and as per their request and consent, the petition was finally heard.

3. The premise of facts on which the case of the petitioners and the prayers made are quite relevant to be outlined. It appears that between the petitioners and the private respondent company, an agreement called EPABX Operator Agreement in the nature of franchisee agreement was entered into. Thereunder the respondent Reliance company and the affiliates of Reliance have been granted licences for the purpose of providing telecommunication products and services in different places. The licencee was allowed to act by appointing private persons by entering into agreements. It is stated that the Reliance was inter alia desirous of providing such services through EPABX and for said purpose, it appointed operates-the petitioners herein who by mode of the aforesaid agreement, agreed to provide the said services in the areas mentioned in the Agreement. It is the case of the petitioners that in different cities such as Ahmedabad, Surat, Bhavnagar, Vadodara, they operate under the Agreement and started setting up group EPABX under the franchisee contract.

3.1. In view of a policy Scheme dated 27th January, 1994 by the Government of India whereunder the licence is permitted to a third person who act through private operator. They are permitted to install, maintain and operate including EPBAXs. Under the franchise, a licencee may enter into independent contract with private operator to provide telecom facilities. The conditions are prescribed to be included in the licencing agreement under the said policy circular dated 04th March, 1994. The petitioners herein are the operators who having entered into agreement with the private respondent company herein, and accordingly they provide telecom facilities of DID and Group EPBAX. It is averred in the paragraph 9, projecting a cause of action for institut