The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'public institution' and its application to determine eligibility for special category allotment of telephone connections.

1. The petitioner, a Proprietor of a Cinema theatre, applied for a telephone connection and deposited a sum of Rs. 1000/- for the purpose. He claimed preference under Non-OYT special category and it was rejected by order dated 13-10-1980 (Ext P7) on the ground that'Cinema Talkies/Theatres are not eligible for special category. The petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P3 and pray for consequential reliefs.

2. Executive instructions have been issued by the Postal Department from time to time regarding allotment of telephones under the OYT, Special and General categories.

3. Under OYT (Own your Telephone) scheme, an applicant

"makes an advance lump-sum payment in the form of advance payment of part of the rent for certain number of years. The subscriber gets a rebate and is liable to pay less rent than the normal rent fixed by the Department.

4. Under Non-OYT scheme,

"an applicant makes an advance deposit, the amount depending upon capacity of the exchange. When a telephone is sanctioned, this deposit is adjusted towards security deposit, advance quarterly rent and installation charges. The subscriber is liable to pay normal rent fixed by the Department."

The petitioner, admittedly has applied only under the Non-OYT scheme. Applications are registered under several categories and Non-OYT special is one category consisting of "For doctors holding recognised degrees or diploma in any approved system of medicine or surgery, qualified nurses and registered mid-wives.

Newspapers, journals and magazines, registered with Registrar of Newspapers registered News Agencies, Accredited Press Correspondents and Press Photographers.

Public Institutions.

Small Scale Industries.

Public Men, Social workers and Tamra Patra holders. Foreign exchange earners when OYT is not open."

Is Cinema a Public Institution? The House of Lords in Mayor & C, of Manchester v. Mcadam (Surveyor of Taxes) (1896 A.C. 500) had to consider the meaning of the expression "literary institutions". Lord Harschell observed thus:

"It may be well to consider, first, what is the meaning of the word "institutions" as used in the section. It is a word employed to express several different ideas. It is sometimes used in a sense in which the "institution" cannot be said to consist of any persons, or body of persons, who could, strictly speaking, own property. The essential idea conveyed by it in connection with such adjectives as "literary" and "scientific" is often no more than a system, scheme or arrangement, by which literature or science is promoted without reference to the persons with whom the management may rest, or in whom the property appropriated for these purposes may be vested, save in so far as these may be regarded as a part of such system, scheme, or arrangement. That is certainly a well-recognised meaning of the word. One of the definitions contained in the Imperial Dictionary is as follows: "A system, plan, or society, established either by law, or by the authority of individuals, for promoting any object, public or social."

Lord Maenaghten expressed thus:

"It is a little difficult to define the meaning of the term "institution" in the modern acceptation of the word. It means, I suppose, an undertaking formed to promote some defined purpose having in view generally the instruction or education of the public. It is the body (so to speak) called into existence to translate the purpose as conceived in the mind of the founders into a living and active principle. Sometimes the word is used to denote merely the local habitation or the headquarters of the institution. Sometimes it comprehends everything that goes to make up the institution everything belonging to the undertaking in connection with the purpose which informs and animates the whole. A public library may, I think, be properly called an 'institution" in that sense."

Chief Justice Raman Nayar in Mother Provincial v. State of Kerala (1969 KLT. 749 (FB.)) observed:

"As we have seen, even what is called a private college is