JUDGMENT - Dr. B.P. SARAF, J.:-By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 1 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam to refund an amount of Rs. 200-, being the difference between the initial deposit of Rs. 5,000/ and the amount of Rs. 4.800/- adjusted during the period of last 20 years by way Of rebate in the rental. The material facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner, who is an advocate by profession, applied for a telephone connection under the "Own Your Telephone" ('OYT) Scheme on 8th April 1975. Along with the application, the petitioner made a deposit of Rs. 5,000/- as required by Rule 434 of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 ("Rules"). The deposit was made on 1st July 1975. The telephone connection was provided to the petitioner on 13th August 1977. By a communication dated 15th December 1977, the Accounts Officer-TR(E), Bombay Telephones (predecessor of respondent No. 1 ) informed the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by him had been adjusted as O.Y.T. deposit for which he would get a rebate of Rs. 60/- per quarter in the rental charges for a period of 20 years from the date of installation. The petitioner was also informed that the interest on the amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the date of deposit upto the date of sanction, which worked out to Rs. 633.35, would also be adjusted against his future bills. Accordingly, reduction was given in the rental charges at the rate of Rs. 60/- per quarter for a period of 20 years from the date of installation. The amount of interest of Rs. 633.35 was also adjusted against the bills of the petitioner. There is no dispute on this count. After expiry of 20 years and after all adjustments having been made, the petitioner by his letter dated 28th July, 1997, addressed to the Accounts Officer, Telephone Revenue, (North VI) of the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam, made a grievance of the fact that he was given reduction of Rs. 4,800/- only during the period of 20 years, as a result of which a sum of Rs. 200/- remained with the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ("M.T.N.L"). The petitioner claimed refund of the same. On the failure or refusal of respondent No. 1 to refund the amount of Rs. 200/- to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4,800/- only during the period of 20 years, as a result of which a sum of Rs. 200/- remained with the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ("M.T.N.L"). The petitioner claimed refund of the same. On the failure or refusal of respondent No. 1 to refund the amount of Rs. 200/- to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2.When this writ petition came up for admission, Ms. lyyer, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the fact that M.T.N.L. was refunding by way of reduction of rental for 20 years only a sum of Rs. 4,800/- against the deposit of Rs. 5,000/- and illegally retaining a sum of Rs. 200/- from every subscriber under O.Y.T. scheme, thrs writ petition should be treated as a public interest litigation and the respondents should be asked to submit their reply in that light. Accordingly, Rule was issued and the respondents were asked to take note of this submission and to submit their affidavits in that light. The matter was directed to be placed for hearing on the prayer for interim orders today. Both M.N.T.L. and Central Government have filed their affidavits. Having regard to the stance of the respondents in their affidavits, Counsel for the parties are agreed that instead of hearing on the prayer for interim relief, this writ petition itself may be heard and disposed of on merits. Accordingly, by consent, this writ petition taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3.We have heard Mr. S.H. Doctor, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner is entitled to get not only the refund of Rs. 200/- being the difference between the amount of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by the petitioner and the reduction given in the rental charges by way of rebate which amounted to Rs. 4,800/-, but refund of the full amount of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by him. According to Mr. Doctor, on the surrender of the telephone or on completion of 20 years period, the' petitioner is entitled to refund of the full amount of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by him. We have carefully considered this submission of Mr. Doctor. We, however, find that this was not the case of the petitioner at any time either before the Department in his application or in this writ petition. The petitioner, in fact, wanted M.T.N.L. to refund the sum of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by him. We have carefully considered this submission of Mr. Doctor. We, however, find that this was not the case of the petitioner at any time either before the Department in his application or in this writ petition. The petitioner, in fact, wanted M.T.N.L. to refund the sum of Rs. 200/- which, according to him, it had illegally retained after completion of 20 years. The case of the petitioner before the M.T.N.L. as also in this writ petition was that in consideration of the deposit of Rs. 5,000/-, he has been given adjustment or reduction in rental charges at the rate of Rs. 60/- per quarter for a period of 20 years, as a result of which a sum of Rs. 200/- still remains with the M.T.N.L. which they are liable to refund to the petitioner. The submission of Mr. Doctor before us now is that the petitioner is entitled to refund not only of Rs. 200/- but of Rs. 5,000/- because the reduction of Rs. 4,800/- given during the period of 20 years has nothing to do with the deposit. This submission, in our opinion, is wholly misconceived. There is no foundation, factual or legal, for the same. Though this was not the submission in the writ petition, we propose to deal with the same. 4.Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, learned Additional Solicitor General, vehemently opposed this writ petition. According to him, it is wholly misconceived. He submitted that the scheme of O.Y.T. is quite clear and brooks no confusion. Even the communication to the petitioner as far back as in 1977 when the telephone was sanctioned says in clear terms that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by him along with the application for O.Y.T. telephone had been adjusted as "OYT deposit" which was nothing but "initial deposit" of Rs. 5,000/- which the subscriber to whom an O.Y.T. telephone connection is provided under the scheme is required to make and in consideration whereof, the subscriber is entitled to a rebate at the rate of Rs. 60/- per quarter or Rs. 240/- per year in the rental charges for a period of 20 years from the date of installation. Dr. Chandrachud submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner was given a rebate at the rate of Rs. 60/- per quarter for a period of 20 years. 60/- per quarter or Rs. 240/- per year in the rental charges for a period of 20 years from the date of installation. Dr. Chandrachud submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner was given a rebate at the rate of Rs. 60/- per quarter for a period of 20 years. Hence, the petitioner does not have any basis or justification whatsoever for claiming refund of Rs. 200/- being the difference between the initial payment of Rs. 5,000/- and the amount of rebate of Rs. 4.800/-. In reply to the other submission of Mr. Doctor that the full amount of Rs. 5,000/- should be refunded, it was contended by Dr. Chandrachud that the deposit made by the petitioner stood converted into initial payment for the O.Y.T. connection under Rule 434 of the Rules, in consideration of which he has already got the rebate at the rate of Rs. 60/- per quarter for a period of 20 years. The learned Counsel stated that there was no deposit with the respondents of which the petitioner could claim refund. He submitted that the above submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was neither based on pleadings nor on the claim of the petitioner before the respondent No. 1. It was contended that the uncontroverted factual position in this case is that out of the sum of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by the petitioner and interest thereon upto the date immediately preceding the date of sanction of the telephone amounting to Rs. 633.35, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was adjusted against the "initial payment" which the petitioner was required to make under Rule 434 of the Rules and the balance amount of Rs. 633.35 was adjusted against the future bills of the petitioner. He also drew our attention to the communication of the Department dated 15th December 1977, which has been annexed by the petitioner himself to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner was informed about the adjustment of the deposit towards "initial payment". It was contended that the expression "OYT Deposit", used in the above communication, obviously, refers to the "initial payment" of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 434 of the Rules. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We have perused Rule 434 of the Rules. Section III-A of the said rule deals with the requirement of deposit along with applications for telephone connections, inter alia, under O.Y.T. Scheme. 5,000/- under Rule 434 of the Rules. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We have perused Rule 434 of the Rules. Section III-A of the said rule deals with the requirement of deposit along with applications for telephone connections, inter alia, under O.Y.T. Scheme. Item No. 1(a) of section III-A of Rule 434 of the Rules which specifies the amount of deposit required to be made with the application for telephone under 'Own Your Telephone Scheme". This item, so far as relevant, as it stood at the material time, reads : "Section III-A-Deposits along with applications for connections under Own Yours Telephone Scheme and under Special or General Categories. (1 )(a) Every application for telephone connection shall be accompanied with an amount of deposit of a specified sum as shown in the Table below:- TABLE Own Your Telephone Applications --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Capacity of Exchange System --------------------------------------------------------- 10,000 lines 1,000 lines and Below and above above but below 1,000 lines 10.000 lines ??????????????????????????????---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amount of deposit Rs. 5,000 Rs. 4,000 Rs. 3,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------" Sub-Clause (b) of Clause (1) provides for payment of interest on the deposit made under sub-clause (a). Sub-dause(c) of Clause (1) provides for adjustment of the amount of deposit along with interest accrued thereon towards the Own Your Telephone Deposit and advance rental. These sub-clauses read : (b) The deposit under sub-item (a) shall carry an interest for the period commencing on the date of deposit and ending with the date immediately preceding the date of sanction of the telephone, at the rate payable by the State Bank of India on fixed deposits made with such Bank for a period of one year and the interest shall be calculated for the completed number of months at the rate in force on the date of deposit. (c) On sanctioning of a telephone, the amount of deposit held with the application together with the interest accrued thereon, shall be adjusted as follows :-- (i) Own Your Telephone Towards the Own Your applications Telephone Deposit and advance rental. (ii) General or Special Towards advance of Category one year's rental and the applications quarterly rental. It is clear from the above that the deposit is required to be made along with the application for connection which carries interest at the specified rate from the date of deposit to the date immediately preceding the date of sanction of the telephone. (ii) General or Special Towards advance of Category one year's rental and the applications quarterly rental. It is clear from the above that the deposit is required to be made along with the application for connection which carries interest at the specified rate from the date of deposit to the date immediately preceding the date of sanction of the telephone. It is also clear that on a telephone being sanctioned, the amount of deposit made with the application together with interest accrued thereon is liable to be adjusted in case of Own Your Telephone Scheme applications towards Own Your Telephone Deposit and advance rental and in case of other categories towards advance qt~e year's rental and the quarterly rental. Section IV of Rule 434 specifies the chaltgesrfor connection under Own \bur Telephone Scheme. It provides :-- "Section IV-CHARGES FOR CONNECTION UNDER YOUR TELE- PHONE SCHEME:- A subscriber to whom a telephone connection is provided under this scheme shall be required to make an initial payment of a specified lump sum and in consideration thereof get a reduction in the rental for a fixed period. The particulars of the initial lump sum payment etc. are shown in the Table below:- TABLE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Capacity of Exchange System --------------------------------------------- 10,000 1,000 linesBelow and above and above1,000 but below 10.000 lines --------------------------------------------------------- (a) Initial payment Rs. 5,000 Rs. 4,000 Rs. 3,000 (b)Initial period during which a reduction in rental is admissible.20 years20 years20 years (c) Rebate rental : (i) On rentals paid annualyRs. 240Rs. 192Rs. 144 (ii) On rentals paid quarterlyRs. 60Rs. 48Rs. 36 (iii) On rental paid monthly......Rs. 12 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Provided that the above change in the initial payment and in the rebate inrental shall not apply to a subscriber to whom a telephone connection has been provided under the scheme before 15th May, 1974 or any applicant for telephone connection who has already made a deposit under the scheme and to whom a telephone connection could not be provided before that date." 6. On a plain reading of the above provisions of Rule 434, it is clear that a subscriber to whom a telephone connection is provided under "Own Your Telephone Scheme" is required to make an initial payment of a specified lump sum and in consideration thereof he gets reduction in the rental for a fixed period. On a plain reading of the above provisions of Rule 434, it is clear that a subscriber to whom a telephone connection is provided under "Own Your Telephone Scheme" is required to make an initial payment of a specified lump sum and in consideration thereof he gets reduction in the rental for a fixed period. The initial lump sum payment as also the reduction varies with the capacity of the exchange system. In the instant case, the initial payment is Rs. 5.000/- for which the subscriber is entitied to a rebate in the rental charges for a period of 20 years at the rate of Rs. 240/- per annum. There is no dispute in this case that the petitioner made deposit of Rs. 5,00/- along with his application as required by section III-A of Rule 434. That was the only deposit made by him. The petitioner did not make any separate payment of Rs. 5,000/- as required by section IV of Rule 434 as an 'initial paymenf. On sanctioning of the telephone, the amount of deposit made with the application was adjusted towards this initial payment as provided in section lll-A(1)(c) of Rule 434 and the amount of interest accrued upto the date of sanction of the telephone was adjusted against the advance rental and future bills. In consideration of this 'initial payment' of Rs. 5,000/- for a period of 20 years, a rebate at the rate of Rs. 240/- per year was granted to the petitioner by way of reduction in the rental as contemplated by section IV of Rule 434. That being so, we do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondents. The deposit of Rs. 5,000/- made by the petitioner along with the application for telephone connection was adjusted towards the initial payment as required under Rule 434 and the amount of accrued interest thereon towards the advance rental and future bills. The petitioner was also informed of the adjustment being made soon after the sanction of the connection in the year 1977. In consideration of ttie initial payment, rebate at the rate of Rs. 240/- per year was given for a period of 20 years. Both the grievances of the petitioner in this case are thus wholly unfounded. The petitioner is neither entitled to a refund of the difference between the sum of Rs. In consideration of ttie initial payment, rebate at the rate of Rs. 240/- per year was given for a period of 20 years. Both the grievances of the petitioner in this case are thus wholly unfounded. The petitioner is neither entitled to a refund of the difference between the sum of Rs. 5,000/- which was paid by him by way of initial payment for getting the connection under O.Y.T. Scheme and the rebate of Rs. 4,800/- granted to Mm in the rental charges for a period of 20 years nor to refund the amount of Rs. 5,000/-. So far as the claim of refund of the amount of Rs. 5,000/- is concerned, it is clear from sections III-A and IV of Rule 34 of the Rules and the uncontroverted facts of the case that there was no deposit which could be refunded to the petitioner; the claim for refund of this amount, therefore, is not only untenable and unfounded but wholly frivolous. 7. This writ petition is thus devoid of any merits. In facts, it is a gross misuse of the process of the Court. It is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed.