9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Eligibility of a cinema theatre for a telephone connection under special category. 2. Interpretation of "public institution" in the context of telephone allotment guidelines. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a cinema theatre proprietor, applied for a telephone connection under the Non-OYT special category but was rejected on the grounds that cinemas are not eligible for special category. The petitioner sought to challenge this decision and requested to quash the rejection order (Ext. P-7) and seek consequential reliefs. 2. The judgment highlighted the distinction between the OYT and Non-OYT schemes for telephone connections. Under the Non-OYT scheme, applicants make an advance deposit, and the petitioner in this case had applied under this scheme. The Non-OYT special category includes various entities like doctors, newspapers, public institutions, etc., based on specific criteria. 3. The court delved into the concept of "public institution" by referencing legal precedents and definitions. Various definitions were provided, including Lord Herschell's interpretation emphasizing a system or arrangement promoting public or social objectives. The judgment also cited Chief Justice Raman Nayar, who considered even private colleges as public institutions due to their service to the public. 4. The court examined the guidelines provided by the Postal Department regarding public institutions eligible for telephone connections. The guidelines specified that public institutions must be run by public funds and for the benefit of the general public. Examples included recognized schools, hospitals, social organizations, etc., clearly outlining the criteria for classification as a public institution. 5. Ultimately, the court concluded that a cinema theatre, being a private enterprise operated for profit, does not qualify as a public institution. Despite the petitioner's argument based on the guidelines' use of "et cetera," the court held that cinemas do not fall within the scope of public institutions for telephone allotment purposes. The petitioner was directed to follow the standard application process unless opting for the OYT scheme. 6. As a result, the court dismissed the petition, stating that no rights of the petitioner were infringed, and there were no merits in the case. The petitioner was not entitled to special category treatment for a telephone connection due to the nature of the business as a cinema theatre. The judgment concluded without awarding any costs to either party.
|
