Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 976 (PNJ)

Swastika Spinning Mills v. Union Of India

2002-09-25

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2002
Judgment Swantanter Kumar, J. 1. This is petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3. 2. It may be appropriate to refer to the necessary facts in dispute:- 3. The petitioner is registered partnership firm at Panipat, Distt. Karnal and manufactures woollen yard and also deals in its export. 4. Union of India, Department of Post and Telegraph, declared a policy dated 23.12.1992, wherein specific facilities as per the terms and conditions of the policy were being provided for installation of Telex connection. Scheme was termed as "Security Deposit Scheme for Telex Connections". 5. In furtherance to this scheme, the petitioner applied for installation of a Telex connection in August, 1982 and deposited annual rent of Rs. 4500/-. The respondents specifically asked the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as security being Telex subscribeRs. Security deposit was non-interest bearing in terms of the policy. Bills were received vide letter dated 31.3.1983. Annexure P-2 and dated 30.4.1983 Annexure P-3 to the writ petition. 6. On these facts, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that demand of Rs. 10,000/- as security is arbitrary and unsustainable and in any case, the security should carry interest ultimately payable to or adjustable in the a/c of petitioner. 7. Reply on behalf of the respondents has been filed, wherein it has been stated that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of provisions of Section 7 of the Post and Telegraph Act, 1885 as the statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under the said provisions. Secondly, it is contended that the Govt. has formulated a policy in accordance with the rules of the Telegraph Act and payment is fully justified and is in consonance with the principles of commercial activity. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that it cannot be disputed that there is statutory remedy under the Act, but it will not be fair and just, at this juncture to dismiss the writ petition on the plea of alternative statutory remedy as the writ has been pending in this Court for the last more than 19 years. 9. 9. Without commenting on the merits of this case, I would proceed to entertain the writ petition on merits. 10. It is the conceded case that the scheme was formulated before even the petitioner submitted an application for installation of Telex connection. Clause relevant to security deposit of this scheme is Clause 4 which reads as under:- "The amount of Rs. 10,000/- recovered from the applicants will earn a normal bank interest up to the date of installation of telex connection and after the connection has been provided it will not earn any interest and will be treated as Security Deposit against the dues to the department and the cost of the equipment at the premises of the parties. This deposit will be returned to the subscriber when the connection is finally closed after adjusting the departmental dues, if any". 11. It is settled principle of law that the Government had formulated its own policy and normally, the courts would not interfere with the policy of the State Government unless and until there was some infringement of right guaranteed to a person under the Constitution. Mere fact that the security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- is required to be made for the grant of Telex connection can neither to be termed arbitrary or unreasonable. As clearly mentioned that it will not carry interest after installation of Telex connection. However, if there is any delay in the instalment of Telex connection, amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall carry interest to the credit of the applicant for that period alone. This condition is fair and meets the required standard. Every department of the Government and particularly undertakings carrying on commercial business or activity are well within its right to claim reasonable profit and being not bound by the principle of no profit no loss. If for the service rendered, respondents have taken advantage of meager interest on the interest payable to the Corporation on the deposit of Rs. 10,000/- for the period when service is provided, this cannot be termed to be unfair. This principle is duly accepted even by the Apex Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Anr. v. Association of Natural Gas Consuming Industries of Gujarat and Ors. 1990 (Supp)S.C.C. 397. 12. 10,000/- for the period when service is provided, this cannot be termed to be unfair. This principle is duly accepted even by the Apex Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Anr. v. Association of Natural Gas Consuming Industries of Gujarat and Ors. 1990 (Supp)S.C.C. 397. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the instructions were made operative retrospectively as the installation of Telex was prior to the imposition of the impugned condition. 13. This contention has no merit. The condition has not been operated retrospectively. Respondents have specifically stated in their reply and even before this Court that they would abide by the terms and conditions of the policy. Furthermore the petitioner has exercised their option given specific consent to the terms and conditions of the policy in writing. Petitioner deposited the money thereafter. Petitioner is estopped from his conduct to challenge the correctness of this condition. Furthermore, it is always open to the petitioner to surrender the telex connection if it was not commercially viable. For to reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.