Madras High Court
U. Harish Kumar vs Union Of India on 30 July, 2014
Author: M. Sathyanarayanan
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.Sathyanarayanan
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 30.07.2014
Coram:
The Honourable Mr. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, Chief Justice
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN
Writ Petition No.35029 of 2013
and M.P. No.1 of 2013
U. Harish Kumar .. Petitioner
vs.
1. Union of India
rep. by its Secretary
Department of Telecommunication
Ministry of Communications and
Information Technology
New Delhi.
2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)
through its General Manager
(HR & Administration)
78, Pursawalkam High Road
Chennai 600 010.
3. State of Tamil Nadu
through its Secretary to Govt.
Highways and Minor Ports Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. .. Respondents
---
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to restore the BSNL land line and broad-band connection by laying new cables in Kakkavakkam Village and neighbouring five villages, namely, 1.Kakkavakkam, 2.Thandalam, 3.Soolameni, 4.D.R.Kuppam and 5.Thumbakkam in Uthukottai (T.K.), Tiruvellore District, which was damaged by the third respondent.
---
For Petitioner : Mr. V. Srikanth
For Respondents : Mr. S.T.S. Moorthy
Govt. Pleader for R3
Mr. K. Balajee for R1 & R2.
---
O R D E R
(Made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice) The petitioner obtained the land line service connection from BSNL in the year 2002 and claims that he got broadband connection in the year 2009. However, the connection stopped functioning in November, 2011, on account of the alleged activities of the third respondent/highways department in the process of widening the road, where underground cables were damaged. Despite representations by the petitioner and other villagers, the needful was not done. It is the case of the petitioner that the land line connection be restored by laying new cables.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent/BSNL. It is not in dispute that the cables were damaged during widening of the road by the third respondent and the estimated cost for laying new cables is to the tune of Rs.1,89,000/-. On examination of profitability of such enterprise, a decision was taken and duly communicated to the petitioner on 06.02.2013, suggesting WLL telephone connection (wireless) as an alternative to land line. However, the petitioner did not agree for the same. Not only that. The second respondent has decided even to waive all the telephone bills that were generated in the meantime carrying minimum charges, as the consumer could not be burdened.
3. Insofar as the WLL connection is concerned, it has been averred that it is the latest technology in wireless telephone connection served by a WLL tower nearby. The technology used is CDMA technology and stated to be more efficient one and many customers are provided with WLL telephone. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it has been averred that no private operator has been venturing in providing rural telephone connection, but BSNL is the only operator maintaining rural service. Considering the cost involved in restoring telephone connection by cable, the decision is stated to have been taken, which is working very well in the area and the customers can enjoy data facility also using the fixed WLL telephone. For reference, paragraph 9 is reproduced hereunder:
9. The second respondent in respect of Para No.9 of the writ petition submits that no private operator is venturing in providing rural telephone connection, but BSNL is the only operator maintaining rural service. However, considering the cost involved in restoring telephone connection by cable, the customers should cooperate with BSNL and get the service. BSNL is expecting ROI within a period of 3 years but in this case the ROI expected is 10 years which is not a viable option. Hence WLL telephone was suggested. WLL telephone is working very well in the area and the customer can enjoy data facility also using this fixed WLL telephone. Fixed WLL telephone is installed in a customer premises connected with an indoor antenna which gets signal from an outdoor WLL tower installed thereby. The WLL tower will cater for many customers and is effectively working. GSM mobile tower is different from WLL tower and WLL tower is meant for fixed WLL telephone and the technology is CDMA technology which is used worldwide.
4. On consideration of the matter and having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we firstly find that there is no public interest element in the present petition. The petitioner cannot seek to alter all telephone cables specifically when some of them have even availed of the WLL telephone connection as set out in the counter affidavit. No doubt, the existing cables were damaged on account of the work carried on by the third respondent, but it is the matter between the second respondent and the third respondent. A commercially viable decision is sought to be taken, whereby the telephone facility through WLL system is sought to be made available and the petitioner cannot have any extinct right to claim a continued use of the land line connection. The BSNL while performing its duties has to function within the commercial parameters.
5. This petition accordingly stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2013 is also dismissed.
[S.K.K., CJ] [M.S.N., J.]
ATR 30th July, 2014.
To
1. The Secretary
Union of India
Department of Telecommunication
Ministry of Communications and
Information Technology
New Delhi.
2. The General Manager
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)
(HR & Administration)
78, Pursawalkam High Road
Chennai 600 010.
3. The Secretary to Govt.
State of Tamil Nadu
Highways and Minor Ports Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
The Hon'ble The Chief Justice
and
M. SATHYANARAYANAN,J.
ATR
W.P. No.35029 of 2013
30.07.2014