Judgment :- Petitioner Is an Ex-Serviceman. Pursuant to the notification inviting applications for opening public call offices in various places in Alleppey District, petitioner submitted Ext. P2 application for allotting him one of the public telephones, under the Ex-Servicemen quota. Ext. P2 is dated 22-4-1994. The address of installation shown in Ext. P2 as 'Puthenpurackal building", Karuvatta South, Karuvatta'. On the basis of Ext. P2 application petitioner was allotted a public telephone along with two others. From the details contained in the allotment order, shown in para.8 of the O.P., it is clear that all the three telephones were allotted within the local area of Karuvatta though the place of installation of the telephones was indicated separately. Pursuant to the allotment order, the petitioner seems to have completed all the formalities to have the telephone-a- installed for using the building as a public call office. The main grievance of the petitioner highlighted in the O.P. is that the 5th respondent who has also been allotted a telephone in the general category indicating the place of installation as Vazhiyambalam, 4 kms. away from Karuvatta, is now permitted to install his telephone in Karuvatta South just about 100 to 200 yards away from the place where the petitioner was permitted to install his telephone. According to the petitioner the above action of respondents 1 to 3 is totally illegal. Petitioner would contend that if the 5th respondent is permitted to install his telephone in Karuvatta South very near the place where he has installed his telephone, it will totally deprive him of his livelihood. Petitioner has averred that he has invested more than 40000/- rupees taking huge loan from the bank and other sources. The action of respondents 1 to 3 in permitting the 5th respondent to install his telephone near the place where he has already installed Ms telephone would amount to an action in violation of Arts.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India in the facts and circumstances of the case. Petitioner has contended that the telephone allotted indicating the place of installation as Vazhiyambalam cannot be legally allowed to be installed at a different place and that too in the near vicinity of another telephone to be used as a public telephone. Petitioner has contended that the telephone allotted indicating the place of installation as Vazhiyambalam cannot be legally allowed to be installed at a different place and that too in the near vicinity of another telephone to be used as a public telephone. On the above allegations petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the 5th respondent can install the public telephone allotted in his name only at Vazhiyambalam and that respondents 1 to 3 should be directed not to permit the 5th respondent to open the public call office allotted in his name at Karuvatta South. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit producing Ext. R2(a) guidelines dated 14-8-1992 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecom regulating the allotment and installation of public telephones. Fifth respondent has also filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that he is tiling the counter affidavit on behalf of the 4th respondent also. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 have contended that the petitioner has no right to insist that the public telephone allotted to be installed at a particular place coming within the local area of an Exchange should not be shifted to another place within the local area which is near to the place where he has installed his telephone. The policy of the Government is to allow the public telephones on first come first serve basis. Government has taken a policy decision regarding shifting of public telephones not to impose any condition with, regard to the minimum distance of separation between the two pay phones. The only condition required to be satisfied while shifting a public telephone from one location to the other is to see mat the new location also has free access to the public and is facing a road/lane. In the counter affidavit respondents 1 to 3 have pointed out that even the petitioner has shifted his place of installation of the telephone to a place other than the place shown in Ext. P2 application. They have also pointed out that the three telephones including the one allotted to the petitioner are telephones allotted under the serving area of Karuvatta Telephone Exchange and such telephones can be shifted freely to any other place within the serving area of Karuvatta Telephone Exchange without insisting upon any distance rule between the existing public telephones. P2 application. They have also pointed out that the three telephones including the one allotted to the petitioner are telephones allotted under the serving area of Karuvatta Telephone Exchange and such telephones can be shifted freely to any other place within the serving area of Karuvatta Telephone Exchange without insisting upon any distance rule between the existing public telephones. Respondents have also disputed the claim of the petitioner that by the act of permitting the 5th respondent to shift his telephone to Karuvatta South, they have infringed the petitioner's fundamental right under Arts.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Fifth respondent in Ms counter affidavit have contended that it is as permitted by the Department that he has installed the telephone in Karuvatta South. It was in fact when the Department found that the room suggested by him at Vazhiyambalam was not acceptable to the Department that the Department has permitted him to install his phone also in Karuvatta south. The room where he has installed his telephone is more than one kilo meter from the telephone booth of the petitioner. While permitting the petitioner to install his telephone at Karuvatta South the Department has also taken note of the demand made by the public in Karuvatta. Fifth respondent has also denied the various allegations in the O.P. suggesting that he is not qualified to get a public telephone allotted to him. He has also stated that more than 50,000/-rupees has been spent by him for providing the infrastructure facilities for getting the telephone installed. As a result of the interim order issued by this court in the O.P. he is prevented from operating his telephone and is suffering loss day by day. 5. Petitioner has filed a detailed reply affidavit disputing the correctness of the various allegations made in the counter affidavit and reiterating the contentions raised in the O.P. 6. From the details given in paragraph 8 of the O.P. itself it is clear that three telephones were allotted within the local area of Karuvatta Telephone Exchange. It is true that the place of installation indicated were different in all the three cases. While the place of installation of the petitioner's phone was Karuvatta South mat of the 5th respondent was Vazhiyambalam. Though the petitioner has also been permitted to shift his place of installation, the new place in his case was also within Karuvatta South. It is true that the place of installation indicated were different in all the three cases. While the place of installation of the petitioner's phone was Karuvatta South mat of the 5th respondent was Vazhiyambalam. Though the petitioner has also been permitted to shift his place of installation, the new place in his case was also within Karuvatta South. In the case of the 5th respondent shifting was from Vazhiyambalam to a place within Karuvatta South. The only question to be considered is whether shifting of the phone from Vazhiyambalam to Karuvatta South was permissible as per the guidelines or policy adopted by the Department for shilling public telephone. If such shifting is permissible as per the guidelines or policy adopted by the Department, the petitioner may not be entitled to challenge such action on the ground that shifting of a phone allotted at a different place near the place where he has installed his phone would reduce his income substantially and that would violate his fundamental rights under Arts.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph 1 of Ext. R2(a) guidelines would indicate that Government has taken a decision not to insist upon a condition with regard to minimum distance of separation between two pay phones and size of accommodation in the light of the liberalised policy adopted by them for the allotment of public telephones. Order No. 31-13/91-PHB (Pt.5) dated 29-5-1992 issued regarding shifting of public telephones given at page 347 of Swamy's Treatise on Telephone Rules would indicate that the present policy of the Government is to liberally provide public telephones both local and STD/ ISD irrespective of the distance between two such public telephones. The only condition insisted upon is that the public telephone should be located in places which are easily accessible to the public and are facing a road/ lane. It has been made clear in the order that in the light of the liberalised policy there may not be any restriction in shifting the location of such public telephones provided the new location also has free access to public and is facing a road/lane. The shifts within the area of same SDO is authorised to be made by the SDO himself. The shifts within the area of same SDO is authorised to be made by the SDO himself. In the light of the above policy or guidelines adopted by the Government it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that by permitting the 5th respondent to shift his telephone which was allotted originally with the place of installation as Vazhiyambalam to a place within Karuvatta South is in any way illegal or violative of any of his rights much less any fundamental right under Arts.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If the liberalised policy of the Government is to allot public telephones without insisting upon any minimum distance between the existing public telephone and the new public telephone allotted, I do not find any reason to hold that shifting permitted in the case of the 5th respondent is irregular and illegal. 7. Petitioner has got a contention that even if it is permissible to shift a telephone to a place other than the one with reference to which the same was allotted such an order can be passed only by the Committee which has originally allotted the telephone. This again is clearly contrary to the orders issued by the Government which specifically authorised the SDO to pass orders regarding shifting of telephones within his jurisdiction. As such the above contention of the petitioner cannot also be sustained. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the O.P. and the same is only to be dismissed. Accordingly the O.P. is dismissed. Parties will bear their respective costs.