2015 (2) TMI 1357 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Orders Reconsideration of Landline Connection for International School

The Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside BSNL's order rejecting the landline connection application for an International School. The matter was ... Non-feasible area - quashing for failure to record reasons - remand for fresh consideration - clause 7B of Indian Telegraph Act - arbitration between subscriber and service provider - duty of public telecom provider - cost sharing for feasibility works - mandamus to take effective stepsNon-feasible area - quashing for failure to record reasons - remand for fresh consideration - Validity of the order rejecting the petitioner's application for land line connection on the ground that the area is not feasible. - HELD THAT: - The impugned order contains only the single reason that the area is 'not feasible' without explaining how or why it is non-feasible. Reasons asserted in the counter affidavit cannot be read into or used to cure the absence of reasons in the impugned order. For that reason the rejection cannot stand: the order is quashed and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration so that the respondent records determinative reasons and takes necessary steps concerning feasibility. [Paras 6, 8]Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to respondent for fresh consideration.Clause 7B of Indian Telegraph Act - arbitration between subscriber and service provider - Whether clause 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act obliges the petitioner to initiate arbitration before seeking relief. - HELD THAT: - Clause 7B (as invoked by the respondent) applies to disputes between a subscriber and the service provider under an existing relationship. Here no connection has been provided and no contractual relationship has been entered into; consequently the reference to arbitration at this stage is misconceived. The petitioner is not required to be driven into arbitration as a precondition to obtaining administrative relief in respect of a connection yet to be provided. [Paras 5, 7]Reference to clause 7B as a bar is rejected; arbitration not required in the facts of this case.Duty of public telecom provider - mandamus to take effective steps - cost sharing for feasibility works - Relief to be granted and directions to respondent relating to feasibility works, timeline and sharing of transit/feasibility expenses. - HELD THAT: - Given the petitioner's status as an educational institution and the stated need for a land line, the respondent (as a government limb) must adopt a pragmatic approach to enable provision of the connection. The court directed the respondent to take effective steps to make the area feasible and draw the line so as to enable the petitioner to obtain a land line connection within three months. The court also apportioned that, if any transit expenses are incurred exclusively for the petitioner, the petitioner shall bear 25% of such expenses. [Paras 7, 8]Respondent directed to make the area feasible and provide connection within three months; petitioner to share 25% of exclusive transit expenses.Final Conclusion: Writ petition allowed; BSNL's order rejecting the application as 'not feasible' is set aside and remitted for fresh consideration with directions to take effective steps to make the area feasible and provide the land line connection within three months, petitioner to bear 25% of exclusive transit/feasibility expenses; no costs. Issues:Petition to quash BSNL's order rejecting landline connection application on feasibility grounds.Analysis:The petitioner Trust filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash BSNL's order rejecting their landline connection application. The petitioner, an International School with 650 students, argued that due to weak mobile signals in the area, a landline connection was essential for safety reasons. BSNL had cited non-feasibility as the reason for rejection, stating plans to make the area feasible in the future. However, the counter affidavit's reasons were not mentioned in the original order. The Court highlighted that the impugned order's sole reason was non-feasibility, questioning the vagueness of BSNL's plan implementation status.The Court emphasized the importance of landline connections for educational institutions like the petitioner's school and urged BSNL to support such establishments. It was noted that BSNL should approach the matter pragmatically to provide the connection promptly. The Court dismissed BSNL's reference to clause 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act, stating that arbitration proceedings were unnecessary as no agreement had been made yet. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to BSNL for reconsideration.In the final judgment, BSNL was directed to take steps to make the area feasible for a landline connection within three months. The petitioner Institution was instructed to share 25% of any transit expenses incurred exclusively for the connection purpose. The Court concluded by closing the connected Miscellaneous Petition without imposing any costs.