2015 (2) TMI 1357 - HC - Indian Laws

Rejection of application for grant of land line connection - rejected on the ground that the area is not feasible - HELD THAT - The petitioner is running an Educational Institution, said to be an International School with 650 students. For the safety of the students, the land line connection is essential and the respondent organisation being the limb of the Government should extend all supports to enable persons more particularly Schools and Educational Institutions to take land line connections. The petitioner being International School should bear the cost of cable connection charges. Therefore, the respondent should approach the matter in a pragmatic way so that they can extend the land line connection to the said Educational Institution at the earliest. Further, the reference to clause 7 B of Indian Telegraph Act by the respondent, that the petitioner has to refer to Arbitration, is thoroughly misconceived, as section 7 B of the Act would be permitted only in case of dispute between the subscriber and the BSNL/service provider. In the instant case, the connection is yet to be provided and no agreement has been entered and therefore the petitioner need not be driven to refer to arbitration proceedings. The matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Petition to quash BSNL's order rejecting landline connection application on feasibility grounds.

Analysis:
The petitioner Trust filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash BSNL's order rejecting their landline connection application. The petitioner, an International School with 650 students, argued that due to weak mobile signals in the area, a landline connection was essential for safety reasons. BSNL had cited non-feasibility as the reason for rejection, stating plans to make the area feasible in the future. However, the counter affidavit's reasons were not mentioned in the original order. The Court highlighted that the impugned order's sole reason was non-feasibility, questioning the vagueness of BSNL's plan implementation status.

The Court emphasized the importance of landline connections for educational institutions like the petitioner's school and urged BSNL to support such establishments. It was noted that BSNL should approach the matter pragmatically to provide the connection promptly. The Court dismissed BSNL's reference to clause 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act, stating that arbitration proceedings were unnecessary as no agreement had been made yet. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to BSNL for reconsideration.

In the final judgment, BSNL was directed to take steps to make the area feasible for a landline connection within three months. The petitioner Institution was instructed to share 25% of any transit expenses incurred exclusively for the connection purpose. The Court concluded by closing the connected Miscellaneous Petition without imposing any costs.