Application for telephone made at Tirurangadi Telephone Exchange. - Proposal for new Exchange at Kunnupuram - Applications who come within the Kunnumpuram has been overlooked - There is no illegality. When a new exchange is set up investing crores of rupees it is for the Department to ensure that sufficient income is generated justifying establishment of such an Exchange and to see that unnecessary waste ofo expense is avoided. [ V.Vengopalan and others vs. The Area Manager and others. OP.No. 8192 of 2000. Dated 9th August, 2000. M.R.Hariharan Nair (J)]
Framing of policy for the
allotment of STD-PCO. Preference given to
charitable hospital – Policy matters no interference. [Vikram
Trisal vs Union of India. AIR 1998 J&K 92. T.S.Doabia
(J)]
Person running a small scale
industrial unit is an unemployed person. Allotment to him is arbitrary.
[G.Murugeshan vs. Union of India. AIR 1999 Mad
376]
Cinema Theatre is not a
"public institution" so as to get preference in the allotment. [K.V. Mathew v. District Manager. AIR 1984 Ker.
40.]
Retired officers of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court are not retired Government Servants and are not
eligible to get telephone connection under on-OYT Special Category. [Mehtab Singh Khanna v. Union of India. AIR
1991 P & H 228]
Application for telephone
connection signed by the Manager for and on behalf f the partnership on the
basis of power of attorney is valid even though the stipulations ontained in the
Department shows otherwise. [Shanmugham Chettiar and others. v. Telecom
Department. (Madras State
Commission) 1994 (3) CPR 244]
Application for STD Public
booth by a person , against whom eviction proceedings are launched. Undertaking
given that he will surrender the telephone or shift the same to a new place, in
case he is evicted. Telephone connection can be granted. [ Thomas M.J. vs The
General Manager, W.A.No. 834 of 1997. Kerala . U.P.Singh (CJ) &
S.Sankarasubban(J)
Pre-condition
imposed by the Telecom Department to include Advocates in the Special Category
is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. [
S.Rajeev vs. Union of India. 1999(2) K.L.J. 976. Dr.Justice AR.Lakshmanan &
S.Sankarasubban (J &J)
Proprietor of a
Cinema Theatre will not come under special category. Cinema theatre is not a
public institution. [ Mathew vs District Manager.
1983 KLT 1022= 1982 KLN 666 = AIR 1984 Ker 40. V.Bhaskaran Nambiar
(J)]
Advocates -
Inclusion in special category - Exclusion of Advocates as professionals in
Non-OYT-Special Category for allotment on priority basis is not legal. [Prasad vs Union of India. 1999(1) KLT SN.50.P.37 =
1991(1) ALT NRC 10. Sardar Ali Khan & Venkatrama Reddy
(J&J)]
Categorising
applicants for allotment on the basis of executive instructions - Priority and
out of turn allotment on the said basis is valid . [Mohmmed Ali vs. Union of India. 1974 KLT 170 = 1973 KLJ 878
= 1973 KLR 713 = AIR 1974 Ker 157. V.P.Gopalan Nambiar & G.Viswanatha Iyer
(J&J)
