Judgment :- Jawaharlal Gupta, C.J. Is the prescription of different rates of rental for rural and urban areas violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this bunch of cases. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in O.P.No. 21738 of 2002. These may be briefly noticed. 2. The first petitioner is a registered association of telephone subscribers. The second petitioner is one of the members. The petitioners had filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, viz., O.P.No.1858 of 2002 to challenge "the unscientific classification of rural and urban, based on the 1991 Census Report and the consequent increase in the rent for urban subscribers." The Department was directed to consider the entire matter. Thereafter, the General Manager of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited passed an order dated May 31, 2002. A copy of this order has been produced as Ext.P1. The petitioners allege that bills charging rent at different rates have been issued to the subscribers. The rent is being charged differently even though the subscribers are getting the facility from a common Exchange. The petitioners allege that the differential rate of rent is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21. They pray that the order dated May 31, 2002 be quashed. 3. The respondents contest the petitioners' claim. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fifth respondent in O.P.No. 28820 of 2002. The counsel stated that it may be read in all the cases. It has been averred that while carrying out the Census, the urban area is defined. The residuary portion forms the rural area. The classification of the area is done before the Census operations really begin. The "definition of an urban unit followed at the 2001 Census issued by the Office of the Registrar General, India" provides as under: "(a) All places with a Municipality, Corporation, Cantonment Board or notified area committee, Township etc. (b) All other places which satisfied the following criteria; (i) A minimum population of 5,000; (ii) At least 75% of the male working population engaged in non- agricultural pursuits and (iii) A density of population of at least 400 persons per sq.km. (1000 persons per sq.mile)." This was also the criteria followed during the 1991 Census. (b) All other places which satisfied the following criteria; (i) A minimum population of 5,000; (ii) At least 75% of the male working population engaged in non- agricultural pursuits and (iii) A density of population of at least 400 persons per sq.km. (1000 persons per sq.mile)." This was also the criteria followed during the 1991 Census. All places, which have been notified under law by the State Government and have local bodies like Municipal Corporation, Municipality, Cantonment Board, Township etc. had been included in the list of towns. In the second step, the identification of urban units was based on the demographic criterion. The "basic unit for deciding a place as rural or urban …. is a revenue village or a portion of a revenue village." Thus, for the purpose of telephone rental, the classification made during the 'Census' is followed. 4. A separate counter affidavit has also been filed by the General Manager. It has been pointed out that the case is covered by the judgment of a Division Bench in W.A.No. 437 of 2000 and O.P.No. 4483 of 2002. The Nigam is following the Census Report for the purpose of classification of the area a rural or urban. 5. On behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that Census or population of an area has no reasonable nexus with the rate of rent to be paid by a telephone subscriber. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the classification is well founded. In any case, the petitioners having not challenged the grant of concessional rate to the rural subscribers, they cannot complain of discrimination. 6. The fixation of telephone tariff is primarily a question of policy. The Parliament has by an Act constituted the Telecom Regulatory Authority. It consists of experts in the field of telecom, engineering and finance etc. The matter is considered by experts. The Courts cannot interfere with the tariff unless it is shown to be patently arbitrary or unfair. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that there is no rational basis for differentiating between the rural and urban subscribers. The contention is misconceived. The matter is considered by experts. The Courts cannot interfere with the tariff unless it is shown to be patently arbitrary or unfair. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that there is no rational basis for differentiating between the rural and urban subscribers. The contention is misconceived. A perusal of the order dated May 31, 2002 shows that prior to 1996, there was no concession "in rental and call charges for rural subscribers." The concession "for rural subscribers was introduced by the Government of India as a policy decision." The obvious intention of the Government was to encourage the rural subscriber to use telephone. It is well known that the rural areas are not properly connected with townships. The road facilities are not up to the mark. There is difficulty in communication. Thus, availability of a telephone connection would help a person to communicate with others. Charging of a concessional rate, thus, has a reasonable nexus with the object of promoting the use of telephones by the residents of rural areas. Such an action cannot be said to be arbitrary or unfair. 8. Still further, a criterion for the classification into urban and rural has been laid down for the purposes of the Census operations. It has been uniformly followed even for the purpose of levying rental for the telephones. It has been equally applied to all. It cannot be said that persons who are similarly situated have been treated differently. Thus, it cannot be said to be discriminatory or violative of Article 14. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Census or population cannot form a valid basis for classification. The contention is misconceived. In the present case, the classification is between the rural and the urban. For this classification, the yardstick as followed for the purpose of Census operations has been adopted and applied. The action is not arbitrary or unfair. 10. In any case, it cannot be said that there is no difference between the rural and urban areas. The object of the Authority appears to be to help the residents in the rural areas. Thus, they are charged rental at a lower rate. It does not violate any principle of equality or fairness. The petitioners, who are admittedly staying in areas, which have been classified as urban, are required to pay at a different rate. The object of the Authority appears to be to help the residents in the rural areas. Thus, they are charged rental at a lower rate. It does not violate any principle of equality or fairness. The petitioners, who are admittedly staying in areas, which have been classified as urban, are required to pay at a different rate. In the process, no arbitrariness or violation of Article 14 is involved. 11. Learned counsel referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in P. Rajendran v. State of Madras (AIR 1968 SC 1012), Govind A. Mane v. State of Maharashtra ((2002) 4 SCC 200) and Khailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 2002 SC 2877). 12. We have examined these decisions. The observations made by their Lordships in the context of distribution of seats for the purpose of admission to Medical Colleges are really not relevant in the context of classification of an area into rural or urban for the purpose of levying telephone rental. The petitioners can derive no benefit from the decisions. 13. Mr. Joice George, learned counsel for the petitioner in O.P. No. 12708 of 2003 submitted that an area under the jurisdiction of a Panchayat could not be classified as urban. Reference was made to the definition contained in Article 243(d) of the constitution. 14. The contention cannot be accepted. The provision of Article 243 does not debar the Telephone Regulatory Authority or the respondents from laying down a criterion and providing a concessional rate of rent to a section of the society. It is known that conditions of life in rural areas are not as good as those in villages or rural areas. The urbanites get the most of the tax-payer's money. Most of the facilities for education and health are in the urban areas. At that time, the plight of the poor rural resident does not bother anyone. When a slight concession is given in telephone rental, a charge of discrimination is made. It cannot be sustained. 15. No other point has raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in these cases. Consequently these are dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.