Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 73 (JHR)

SHIKSHIT BEROJGAR v. UNION OF INDIA

2001-01-31

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
Judgment : R. S. MAZUMDAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Central Govt. ( 2 ) IN this writ application the petitioner has challenged the notice, D/- 15-2-1993 as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ application issued by the Accounts Officer (TRA) department of Telecommunication whereby minimum guarantee amount was revised from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 18, 300/- for the year, 1998-99 and Rs. 45,800/- resepctively. ( 3 ) IT appears that pursuant to an advertisement the members of the petitioner-Union applied for public STD/non STD Pay Phone booth and after fulfilling the terms and conditions including payment of minmum gurantee the members of the petitioner-Union were allowed to operate pay-phones booth on certain terms and conditions and the provisions contained in the letter of the DOT, New Delhi, D/- 14-8-1992. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents unilaterally decided to enhance the minmum guarantee of Rs. 5000/- which was fixed at the time of installation of the Pay-Phones. The contention of the petitioner is that after expiry of six months period, the security amount is to be worked out and the same should be equal to either one months average revenue or six months minimum guarantee whichever is higher. ( 4 ) THE stand of the respondent is that the Govt. of India in the Telecommunication department, introduced a scheme whereby the educated unemployed youths were ecouraged to run public Telecom booth in order to facilitate easy telecommunication. In this respect applications were invited for the purpose of installing and running STD Pay Phones (PCO booths) on the condition, inter alia, that at the time of installation the applicants will have to deposit security amount which will be renewed and revised every year. It is stated that the amount of security deposit was fixed at Rs. 5000/- at the initial stage before the monthly billing started. It was decided to renew and revise the security deposit every year and the average monthly revenue will be the security deposit for the next year. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, as stated in para 9 of the writ application the operation of Pay Phone are subject to the provisions laid down in DOT, New Delhi, letter D/- 14-8-1992 a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ application. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, as stated in para 9 of the writ application the operation of Pay Phone are subject to the provisions laid down in DOT, New Delhi, letter D/- 14-8-1992 a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ application. For better appreciation the relevant provision, namely, clause (viii) reads as under: " (viii ). Mode of Security deposit:- The security deposit could be deposited either by cash or bank guarantee as under:- (a) At the initial commissioning of the Pay-phones, it should be equal to six months minimum guarantee amount. (b) After expiry of six months period, the security amount be worked out which should be equal to either one months average revenue or six months minimum guarantee money, whichever is higher. In all such cases of local and STD P. Ts. on which the security deposit taken is larger of six months minimum guarantee amount or one months average revenue, the bills should be issued every 15 days and payment got deposited during the next 7 clear working days, failing which the PTs. may be immediately disconnected. " ( 6 ) FROM perusal of the aforesaid provision it is clear that after expiry of six months period, the respondents shall work out the security amount payable by the licensee which should be equal to either one months average revenue or six months minimum guarantee money whichever is higher. The very purpose of this provision is that there should not be any scope of misapropriation by the licensee in the call charges and also to keep the billing charges of the department fully secured. Moreover, the right to renew and revise the security deposit and the minimum guarantee has been included in the terms and conditions which were agreed by the members of the petitioner at the time of installation of phones. The action of the respondents, therefore, in revising the security deposit and minimum guarantee cannot be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid I do not find any illegality in the show cause notice which needs any interference. There is no merit in this writ application which is, accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed. --- *** --- .