Emergency power cannot bypass misuse procedure for telephone disconnection; authority must record reasoned satisfaction on relevant material.

Emergency power to disconnect telephones required the authority to form and record its own reasoned satisfaction on relevant material showing the requisite public or other emergency; a government certificate alone was not enough. The Court also held that alleged misuse or illegal use could not be dealt with under the emergency provision when a specific rule prescribed a distinct disconnection procedure with notice and opportunity to explain. A drastic statutory power must be exercised only for the purpose and in the manner authorised by the governing provision. The impugned disconnections were therefore unsustainable and the telephone connections were directed to be restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the power to take temporary possession or disconnect telephones could be sustained on the basis of a "public emergency" or "any emergency" when the authority did not form its own reasoned satisfaction on relevant material; (ii) Whether disconnection of telephones on the ground of alleged misuse or illegal use could validly be ordered under the emergency power instead of proceeding under the specific rule dealing with disconnection for misuse.

Issue (i): Whether the power to take temporary possession or disconnect telephones could be sustained on the basis of a "public emergency" or "any emergency" when the authority did not form its own reasoned satisfaction on relevant material.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required a public emergency as the foundation for action under section 5(1), and the authority had to record satisfaction about its existence. The expression "public emergency" was confined to emergencies connected with public safety and the other matters enumerated in the provision. The phrase "any emergency" in rule 422 was wider than "public emergency", but the Divisional Engineer still had to arrive at his own rational satisfaction on relevant material and record reasons, even if aided by a governmental certificate or report. A minimal safeguard against arbitrariness was implicit in the rule.

Conclusion: The emergency-based action could not stand unless the Divisional Engineer formed and recorded his own lawful satisfaction on the existence of the requisite emergency.

Issue (ii): Whether disconnection of telephones on the ground of alleged misuse or illegal use could validly be ordered under the emergency power instead of proceeding under the specific rule dealing with disconnection for misuse.

Analysis: The impugned orders were substantially based on the allegation that the telephones were being used for illegal forward trading. That ground was not germane to rule 422 and attracted the distinct procedure under the rule dealing with improper or illegal use, along with the associated safeguards of notice and opportunity. Where a statute or rule prescribes a particular mode for exercise of a drastic power, that mode alone must be followed. Resort to the wrong and more drastic provision, especially where natural justice required an opportunity to explain, vitiated the orders.

Conclusion: The disconnections were invalid because the authorities acted under the wrong provision and bypassed the procedure applicable to misuse.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the telephone connections were directed to be restored, the action being unsustainable both on the emergency footing and on the basis of alleged misuse.

Ratio Decidendi: A drastic statutory power must be exercised only for the purpose and in the manner prescribed by the governing provision, and an authority cannot invoke an emergency power to avoid the procedural safeguards attached to a distinct misuse-based power.

---