The obligation of public authorities to act reasonably and the application of the principle of nunc pro tunc to correct an injustice done to a party.

1. In February, 1982 the petitioner applied for a telephone connection in the area of the Ernakulam Telephone Exchange. After considering the application, the second respondent issued demand as per Ext.P1 dated March 5,1982 for an amount of Rs.1000/-. The amount was directed to be paid before March 19, 1982 by crossed cheque/ demand draft on any recognised local bank drawn in favour of Accounts Officer, Telephone District, Ernakulam. In compliance with the demand, the petitioner sent a cheque dated March 5,1982 for the amount, drawn on the Mahatma Gandhi Road branch of the Bank of India, Ernakulam. The office of the first respondent issued receipt Ext.P2 of even date acknowledging receipt of the amount. The amount was thus paid in time and well before March 19,1982. Having thus complied with the requisition, the petitioner was expecting the connection to be granted in the normal course. His name was included in the waiting list, with priority based on the date of his application and the deposit of Rs.1000/- made by him.

2. Telephone connections in the Ernakulam Exchange take a long time for fructification. In fact at the time the writ petition was filed on April 8,1987, only those in the waiting list upto January 16,1981 had been provided with connection. It was while so, the petitioner received the communication Ext.P3 dated March 30,1987 from the second respondent, namely, the Commercial Officer of Telephones, Ernakulam stating that his application has been deleted from the waiting list "since the deposit paid by cheque has been dishonoured by the bank". The petitioner filed the original petition challenging the proceedings Ext.P3, and seeking directions to the respondents, to give him the telephone connection on the basis of his priority in the waiting list, "considering the application submitted (by him) in 1982 and the deposit of Rs.1000/- received (by the first respondent) on 5-3-1982".

3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, which does not deny receipt of the petitioner's application for telephone connection or of his cheque for Rs.1000/- on March 5,1982 or of his name being included in the waiting list. But it is pointed out that the cheque issued by the petitioner was not honoured by the bank because the correction in the name of the "beneficiary" had not been properly attested. Ext.Rl(b) is the bank's memo returning the cheque and states the reason for returning the cheque without payment as that the alteration in the name of the beneficiary required the drawer's full signature. What happened was that the petitioner had in the first instance written the name of the payee as "District Manager, Telephones", then corrected it as "Accounts Officer, Telephone District, Ernakulam", and merely initialled the correction, without his full signature. The bank's memo returning the cheque to the State Bank of Travancore, who had presented it for acceptance is dated March 11, 1982. The State Bank of Travancore, in its turn intimated the second respondent about the dishonour by memo dated March 15, 1982. This is seen from Ext.Rl(b). The counter affidavit therefore states that the dishonour of the cheque was not due to any lack of vigilance on the part of respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner was at fault for not enquiring about the position of his registration. Non-payment of the deposit renders the petitioner's application invalid; it stands rejected. The entry in the waiting list was made without waiting for clearance of the cheque "to avoid interpolation of entries". This entry stands automatically cancelled for non-payment of the deposit amount. The petitioner can claim priority only from the date on which he makes payment afresh of the amount.

4. It is evident from the above that despite their knowledge about the dishonour as early as on March 15, 1982, or soon thereafter, the respondents never bothered to intimate the petitioner about it, or direct him to rectify the mistake. One would ha