9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Administrator's order u/s 5 of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885. 2. Validity of the General Manager's order u/r 422 of the Indian Telegraphs Rules, 1951. 3. Requirement of notice and application of mind by the Divisional Engineer. 4. Relevance of the ground of illegal forward trading (satta) for disconnection of telephones. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of the Administrator's order u/s 5 of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 The Administrator of Delhi issued an order u/s 5 of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885, authorizing the Superintendent of Police to take temporary possession of certain telephones in the Coronation Hotel, citing illegal forward trading (satta) and a public emergency. The Supreme Court noted that the occurrence of a "public emergency" is a sine qua non for the exercise of power u/s 5. The term "public emergency" must relate to public safety, sovereignty, integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order. The Court found that an "economic emergency" does not necessarily amount to a "public emergency" unless it raises issues relating to these matters. Issue 2: Validity of the General Manager's order u/r 422 of the Indian Telegraphs Rules, 1951 The General Manager, Telephones, issued orders u/r 422 to disconnect the telephones based on the Delhi Administration's certification of a public emergency. The Supreme Court held that Rule 422 allows the Divisional Engineer to disconnect telephones in any emergency, with or without notice. However, the satisfaction regarding the existence of an emergency must be of the Divisional Engineer, based on relevant material, including any government certificate. The requirement of recording such satisfaction with reasons is implicit in the Rule. Issue 3: Requirement of notice and application of mind by the Divisional Engineer The appellants contended that no prior notice was given, and the Divisional Engineer did not apply his mind or record his satisfaction about the emergency. The Supreme Court emphasized that Rule 421 requires the Divisional Engineer to record his satisfaction and give notice, except in emergent cases. Rule 422 allows disconnection in any emergency, but the Divisional Engineer must form his own opinion about the emergency's existence. The Court found that the General Manager's order lacked this necessary satisfaction and reasons. Issue 4: Relevance of the ground of illegal forward trading (satta) for disconnection of telephones The Supreme Court observed that the impugned action was based mainly on the ground of illegal forward trading (satta), which is not a relevant consideration u/r 422. The appropriate course for such a ground was laid down in Rule 427, which requires giving the subscriber an opportunity to explain their conduct. The Court held that the impugned order was vitiated as it was influenced more by the ground of misuse and less by the existence of a public emergency. Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to restore the telephone connections to the appellants, noting that the power was exercised on an irrelevant ground and without following the proper procedure. Appeals allowed.
|
