2007 (3) TMI 782

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... permission. Appellants who were the respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition took the stand that according to the guidelines of the Ministry of Communication one Gramin PCOI (described in the guidelines as Village Public Telephone, in short the 'VPT') already existing in the concerned village and, therefore, the prayer of the writ petitioner could not be accepted in view of the guidelines. The High Court by a cryptic non-reasoned order held that the conditions in the guidelines "appear to be arbitrary" and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution ). Accordingly direction was granted to allot a VPT to the writ petitioner within the stipulated time. 4. Appellants have chall....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has issued the directions. 5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 1 who was the writ petitioner. 6. We find that 1994 guidelines have been amended from tie to time and clarifications have been issued subsequently on 8.12.1998 and 9.3.1999. it appears that for installation of VPT, define role assigned to the Gram Panchayat. The guidelines of 8.12.1988 stipulate that the Gram Panchayat will recommend only one VPT in a village and the question of multiple cases does not arise. In case of any dispute, the case is to be discussed with Panchayats and resolves. The recommendations for extension/location are to be given by the Panchayat or the BDO as the case may be. 7. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant....