Back
1997 Supreme(Mad) 103
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.A. SWAMI AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AR. LAKSHMANAN
K.A.S. Senthilnathan - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 7829 of 1991 and 2081, 2082 of 1996, Etc. Etc.
Decided On : 28 January 1997
The revision of commission being the policy decision of the Government, in our view, cannot be open to attack under the provisions of the Constitution as long as it does not suffer from caprice, unreasonableness and actuated by ulterior motives and is in public interest.
Headnote:
STD/PCO COMMISSION RATES - REVISION - VALIDITY - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - APPLICABILITY - INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885 - SECTION 4(1), 7(4) - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLES 14, 19(1)(g), 226.
Fact of the Case:
STD/PCO operators challenged the revision in the rates of commission payable for STD/PCO operators. The petitioners contended that the revision was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and that the petitioners would be entitled to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel by which the Government should be estopped from revising the rates of commission from time to time.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the revision of commission was a policy decision of the Government and that a change in the rates of commission gets reflected in the Budget and as such indirectly approved by the Parliament. It is not for the Court exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with such matters of policy. The court further held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the abstract and the courts are bound to consider all aspects including the results sought to be achieved and the public good at large, because while considering the applicability of the doctrine, the courts have to do equity and the fundamental principles of equity must for ever be present to the mind of the court, while considering the applicability of the doctrine. The doctrine must yield when the equity so demands if it can be shown having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that it would be inequitable to hold the Government or the public authority to its promise, assurance or representation.
Issues: 1. Whether the revision of commission was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel? 3. Whether the court could interfere with the policy decision of the Government?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The revision of commission was a policy decision of the Government and that a change in the rates of commission gets reflected in the Budget and as such indirectly approved by the Parliament. It is not for the Court exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with such matters of policy. 2. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the abstract and the courts are bound to consider all aspects including the results sought to be achieved and the public good at large, because while considering the applicability of the doctrine, the courts have to do equity and the fundamental principles of equity must for ever be present to the mind of the court, while considering the applicability of the doctrine. The doctrine must yield when the equity so demands if it can be shown having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that it would be inequitable to hold the Government or the public authority to its promise, assurance or representation.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed.
AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.
Three batches of writ petitions have been filed by the STD/ PCO operators challenging the revision in the rates of commission payable for STD/ PCO operators. The first batch of writ petitions have been filed against the orders in No.6-1/90-PHB dated 2-5-1991. The second batch of writ petitions have been filed challenging the proceedings No. 131-13/91PHB dated 24-7-1993 and the third batch of writ petitions have been filed questioning the correctness of the proceedings No. 31-50/ 95 - PHB dated 26-12-1995.
2. For in the above writ petitions the respondents through their counsel Mr. R. Santhanam, learned Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel have filed a typed set of documents in W.P. No.3039/91 etc., batch (lst batch) wherein an analysis of the STD/ PCO commission rates for the relevant period has been given by way of a tabular statement.
3. Originally a distinction was maintained between the coin/ card operated machines and the private STD phones in justification of the different rates of commission, the reason being that in respect of coin/ card operated machines the investment is higher whereas in respect of the other type of privately attended STD phones the investment was very much lesser than the former. However, the said distinction between the coin/card operated machines and the privately attended STD phones was not continued from 1-6-1991 and earlier for a short duration between 1-9-1989 and 31-12-1989. However, the bulk franchise phones operators have mistakenly construed that the concession shown to coin/ card operated machines should also be applicable to them, irrespective of whether they possess coin/ card operated machines or not. Such a claim, according to the learned Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel, was unwarranted.
4. Mr. R. Krishnamurthi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.7829/91 etc., raised the following contentions : The revision of rates of commission impugned in the respective writ petitions was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and that the petitioners would be entitled to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel by which the Government should be estopped from revising the rates of commission from time to time. He further submitted that the petitioners in the said writ petitions have executed agreements on 24-5-1990 and for commencing their business have invested huge amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- for putting booths with A/C etc. He further contended that unequals were treated as equals in that a bulk franchise phone operator has to make huge investment when compared to the individual licencee and that once the rates of commission have been fixed when the contract was entered into, the same could not be altered to the prejudice of one of the contracting parties unilaterally and that in any event, the principle of promissory estoppel will come into play. In support of his contention, the ruling reported in the Union of India v. Rizwan International, 1993 (1) Mad LJ 569 : 1993 AIR(Mad) 336, 1993 (1) MLJ 569) was cited.
5. Mr. N. R. Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.4524 and 4525 of 1996 relied on the following decisions : (1) LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, 1995 AIR(SC) 1811, 1995 (84) CC 168, 1995 (3) Scale 627, 1995 (5) SCC 482, 1995 (2) UJ 442, 1995 (4) JT 366, 1996 (4) ALT 887); (2) State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raja Reddy 1967 AIR(SC) 1458, 1967 (3) SCR 28, 1967 (2) ITJ 777; and (3) 1995 (2) Mad LJ 57.
6. Mr. A. L. Somayaji; learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 13073 of 1991 etc., has filed certain bills and contended that the petitioners were not treated equally in the matter of payment of commission and unequals are treated alike. He has filed certain bills and contended on that basis that there was substantial reduction in the income of the petitioners on account of the revision of the slab rates.
7. Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel
