Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Dwarka Prasad,M.L. Shrirnal,S.C. Agrawal
Shankar Birmiwal - Appellant
Versus
Union of India (UOI) - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition Nos. 270 of 1979 and 330 of 1980
Decided On : 01/07/1982
TELEPHONE CONNECTION - CLASSIFICATION OF APPLICANTS - SPECIAL CATEGORY - ADVOCATES - CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY - RIGHT TO EQUALITY - ARTICLE 14 - CLASSIFICATION - RATIONAL BASIS - SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS - OVER INCLUSIVE CLASSIFICATION - JUDICIAL REVIEW. The classification of applicants for telephone connections into three categories: (i) O.Y.T. Scheme, (ii) Special Category, and (iii) General Category, is not challenged. The validity of the classification of applicants who are entitled to be registered under the special category is in question. The exclusion of advocates from the special category is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Advocates are similarly situated to other professionals and public servants who are included in the special category, such as doctors, journalists, and teachers. The classification is over-inclusive because it includes persons who are not similarly situated to advocates, such as agricultural farms and small-scale industries. The Court can strike down the offending part of the classification to exclude persons or groups who ought not to have been included in it.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, both advocates, applied for telephone connections under the special category for public workers. The District Manager, Telephones, Jaipur, registered their applications under the general category. The petitioners challenged this decision in writ petitions, which were referred to a larger bench by a single judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the classification of applicants for telephone connections into three categories: (i) O.Y.T. Scheme, (ii) Special Category, and (iii) General Category, is not challenged. The validity of the classification of applicants who are entitled to be registered under the special category is in question. The exclusion of advocates from the special category is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Advocates are similarly situated to other professionals and public servants who are included in the special category, such as doctors, journalists, and teachers. The classification is over-inclusive because it includes persons who are not similarly situated to advocates, such as agricultural farms and small-scale industries. The Court can strike down the offending part of the classification to exclude persons or groups who ought not to have been included in it.
Issues: 1. Whether the classification of applicants for telephone connections into three categories: (i) O.Y.T. Scheme, (ii) Special Category, and (iii) General Category, is valid? 2. Whether the exclusion of advocates from the special category is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the classification is over-inclusive because it includes persons who are not similarly situated to advocates, such as agricultural farms and small-scale industries?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The classification of applicants for telephone connections into three categories: (i) O.Y.T. Scheme, (ii) Special Category, and (iii) General Category, is not challenged. 2. The exclusion of advocates from the special category is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Advocates are similarly situated to other professionals and public servants who are included in the special category, such as doctors, journalists, and teachers. 3. The classification is over-inclusive because it includes persons who are not similarly situated to advocates, such as agricultural farms and small-scale industries. 4. The Court can strike down the offending part of the classification to exclude persons or groups who ought not to have been included in it.
Final Decision: The Court held that the exclusion of advocates from the special category is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The classification is over-inclusive because it includes persons who are not similarly situated to advocates, such as agricultural farms and small-scale industries. The Court can strike down the offending part of the classification to exclude persons or groups who ought not to have been included in it.
S.C. Agrawal, J.-The petitioners in both these writ petitions are Advocates who had applied for grant of telephone connections. They wanted their applications to be registered in special category on the ground that they are public workers. The said applications have however, been registered by the District Manager, Telephones. Jaipur under the general category. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. The said writ petitions were hoard by a learned single Judge of this Court, who by his order dated May 6, 1981, has referred the same to a larger Bench, preterably by three Judges of this Court, for deciding the important Constitutional questions which arise for determination in these writ petitions. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the learned single Judge the writ petitions have been heard by this Bench. Since both the writ petitions raise common questions for determination they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act), the exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs has been conferred on the ‘Central Government and the Central Government empowered to permit, subject to such restrictions and conditions as it thinks fit, the establishment, maintenance and working of telegraphs, other than wireless telegraphs within any part of India. The term “telegraph” is defined in Sub-section, (i) of Section 3 of the Act to mean “any appliance, instrument, material or apparatus used or capable of use for transmission or reception of signs, signal, writing, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, visual or other electromagnetic emissions, radio waves or Hertzian waves, galvanic, electric or magnetic means.” The expression “telegraph line” is defined in Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act to mean a wire or wires used for the purpose of a telegraph, with any casing, coating, tube or pipe enclosing the same and any appliances and apparatus connected therewith for the purpose of fixing or insulating the same”. Section 7 of the Act confers on the Central Government the power to make rules making provision for the matters referred to in Clause (a) to (k) of Sub-section (2). Section 7 (2) (c) enables the Central Government to frame rules prescribing the conditions and restrictions subject to which any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus for telegraphic communication shall be established, maintained, worked, repaired, transferred, shifted, withdrawn or disconnected. Section 7 (2) (f) enables the Central Government to make rules prescribing the charges in respect of the establishment, maintenance, working, repair, transfer or shifting of any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus. Section 7 (4) (b) lays down that nothing in Section 7 or in any rules made under Section 7 shall be construed as subjecting the Central Government to any obligation to provide any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus for the purpose of affording means of telegraphic communication. Since a telephone is an instrument used for transmission and reception of sound by wire, it is “telegraph” as defined in Section 3 (1) of the Act and a telephone connection is a “telegraph line” as defined in Section 3 (4) of the Act. .The provision of a telephone connection is, therefore, governed by the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.
3. In pursuance of the rule making power conferred on it by Section 7 of the Act the Central Government has made the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). The rules relating to telephones are contained in Part V of the Rules, Le., Rules 411’ to 459. Rule 413 lays down that ali telephone connections and other similar services provided or authorised by the department shall, unless governed by a separate contract, be subject to the conditions set forth in the Rules. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 414 lays down that
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
