The court declared that all Advocates on the roll of the Bar Council are entitled to be included in the Non-OYT (Special) Category for telephone connection, and directed the Department to provide telephone connections to Advocates within a reasonable time, quashing discriminatory, unreasonable, and arbitrary pre-conditions.

AR. Lakshmanan, J.

Heard Mr.T. Ravi Kumar for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ramakumar, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, for the respondents. We al so heard Mr. John Varghese, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, who appeared for the respondents in O.P. No. 6115 of 1997, which is also on the same subject matter.

2. The petitioner is an Advocate on the rolls of the Kerala Bar Council, who is practicing in this Court and in other courts and tribunals. He applied for a new telephone connection within the territorial jurisdiction of Parur Telephone Exchange in 1997. He made a representation on 13.2.1997 explaining the hardships faced by him due to the lack of telephone connection at his office and requested to give a new telephone connection to the petitioner at his office on a priority basis considering his profession as a lawyer. He also stated in the representation that he had obtained telephone connection at his house in the ordinary category. The representation is marked as Ext. P3. The Sub Divisional Engineer, Department of Telecommunications, North Paravoor sent a reply to Ext. P3 representation informing the petitioner that for getting a new telephone connection on priority basis by including his name in the Non-O YT (Special) category, the petitioner should not have a phone connection either at his office or at his residence and since the petitioner has a telephone at his residence, he is not eligible for special category registration. The reply is produced as Ext. P4. It is useful to reproduce Ext. P4 communication.

"Subject: New Phone coon, under spl cat. reg. Ref: Your letter dated 2^.1.1997. Sir,

Kindly refer to the letter cited above. It is informed that Advocates who does not have the facility of phone either at the office or residence are eligible for spl. category regn. Since you have a telephone at the residence you are not eligible for special cat. regn.

Yours faithfully,

The petitioner, on enquiry, was given to understand that the 2nd respondent, vide instructions circulated to all Chief General Managers, Telecom Circle/Telegrams under letter No. 2-13/96- PHA dated 17.6.1996, formulated a scheme for including advocates in the Non-OYT (Special) category with many pre-conditions. Copy of the above communication is produced and marked as Ext. P5, which reads thus:

"Sub:- Inclusion of Advocates in Non-OYT/Special Category for provision of New Telephone Policy reg:

It has been decided to include the Advocate in Non-OYT/Special Category for provision of New telephone connection subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:

(1) That the Advocates should have a minimum of five years standing at the bar or must be an Income-tax assessee for the past two years as on the date of application provided:

(i) He/she does not have the facility of phone either at the Office or Residence on the

date of application for telephone connection, (ii) He/Her close relation viz. wife/husband, son, unmarried daughter residing in the same house are not already having a telephone connection.

(iii) If He/She is already having more than one office and the facility of phone is already existing in any area of the office/residence, he/she will not be eligible to be included in this category. This instructions will come into force with immediate effect."

It is submitted by Mr. Ravi Kumar that Ext. P5 stipulates that if an Advocate does not have a minimum of five years' practice or alternatively, if he is not an income-tax assessee for the past two years as on the date of application he cannot be included in the Non-OYT (Special) Category for providing new telephone connection and hence, Ext. P5 cannot be considered to be a fair or reasonable or judicial exercise of power by the 2nd respondent. He further submitted that such classification denies the privilege of special category to advocates who have less than two years of practice even though he become an income tax assessee after enrolment as advocate. The impugned ins