B. N. Kirpal, Arun Madan ( 1 ) THE petitioner had got himself registered for a telephone connection. The registra tion was effected on 1st June, 1988 under Non-OYT General Category and the contention of the petitioner is that one other telephone No. 2212864 has been provided by the respondents to one Shri Vidya Shankar Singh even though he had registered later than the petitioner. The petitioner also indicated one other person in whose favour the telephone had been installed though he had likewise, registered for telephone after the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that he is practising as a lawyer whereas the persons to whom out of turn allotments had been made were not professionals. ( 2 ) SHOW cause notice was issued and in the reply it is stated that out of turn allotments are made according to the Telephone Allotment Rules which have been set out in the counter affidavit. The power s to grant out of turn allotment is given to the Minister (Communication), Chairman, Telecom. Commission and Director General Telecommunications. In actual fact, we are informed by the Addl. Solicitor General that the out of turn allotments are made by the Ministers. ( 3 ) UNDER directions of the Court, the respondents have also filed particulars showing the out of turn allotments which had been made during the year 1990 to 1992. The particulars clearly show that during a relatively short span of 7 to 8 months, when one particular Minister was in office, a large number of telephone connections were ordered on out of turn basis. During no other time out of turn allotment was made in such numbers. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner challenges the authority of the respondents ingranting out of turn allotment which obviously mean favouring some at the cost of others. ( 5 ) THE telephone industry in this country is the monopoly of the Government. Of course MTNL has been set up but this is again a Government of India Undertaking. The demand for telephone connections is much more than the number of connections that can be made available. While ordinarily telephone connections should be granted on the first come first served basis, those who registered earlier getting preference over the late comers, but circumstances can exist where telephone connections may have to be given some priority on out of turn basis. While ordinarily telephone connections should be granted on the first come first served basis, those who registered earlier getting preference over the late comers, but circumstances can exist where telephone connections may have to be given some priority on out of turn basis. The Department of Communications has laid down the guidelines when out of turn allotment can be made. In this regard it is pertinent to mention the relevant para of the affidavit filed by Shri H-S. Chandna, Assistant Director General (PHA), Department of Telecommunications which specifies the categories of persons in whose favour out of turn allotment can be made, which reads as under: "it is submitted that the telephone connections on out of turn basis are sanctioned on objective assessment of genuine and urgent needs of the following categories of subscribers and on medical grounds: (i) Retired personnel. (ii) Defence personnel (iii) Where both husband and wife are in service and their children staying alone. (iv) Physically handicapped (v) Employed women (vi) Widows and separated/divorced women (vii) Security threats (viii) Terrorists threats (ix) Earthquake victims (x) Flood victims (xi) Religious organisations (xii) Social organisations (xiii) Social workers (xiv) Press/media persons. " ( 6 ) ONE cannot find fault with the categorisation but the power to grant out of turn allotment cannot be so exercised to such an extent as to make the exercise of the power arbitrary. We are informed that there are a large number of applicants who have registered for telephone connections but though a number of years have elapsed telephone connections have not been granted to them. Under these circumstances when there is a huge backlog the powers of the Minister or any other functionary to grant out of turn allotment must be restricted. We would have expected the allotment rules to provide for a certain percentage of total connections which may be issued on out of turn basis. This has not been done. Considering the position of demand and supply, and the backlog which exists, it would appear to us that out of turn allotment should not be made of more than 5% of the total connections sanctioned whether in metropolitan cities or in the whole of the country. This of course does not take into consideration temporary/casual connections which are available for a limited period of time on emergency basis. This of course does not take into consideration temporary/casual connections which are available for a limited period of time on emergency basis. We are informed that the record of release of telephone connections is maintained on a financial-year basis whereas the record of out of turn telephone sanctions is maintained on calendar year basis. We find no justification for this purpose. When record regarding telephone connections is maintained on financial year basis, the record with regard to out of turn telephone sanction should also be maintained on financial year basis. It is accordingly directed that out of turn allotment should be granted only to 5% of the total connections and this number will be calculated on the basis of the total number of connections granted in the immediately preceding year. As far as this writ petition is concerned no relief can be granted because the petitioner will be entitled to his allotment only when his turn will come. The writ petition is disposed of in these terms.