Madras High Court
C. Lakshmi Narain vs Secretary, Government Of India, ... on 18 January, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR1994MAD213, AIR 1994 (NOC) 213 (MAD), (1994) WRITLR 801 (1993) 2 MAD LJ 129, (1993) 2 MAD LJ 129
ORDER Ratnam, J.
1. Let your telephonic conversation be brief, short and to the point, comprehending much in few words and limited to a duration of five-minutes; otherwise, it is going to cost the subscriber connected to an eleetronic exchange dearly, is the substance of the letters bearing. No. 3-15/92-K & Co., dated 10-6-1992 and No. II-32/91-PHM/P+l dated 15-9-1992, issued in pursuance of a notification beating G. SR. 560(E) dated 26-5-1992, sought to be quashed by the issue of a writ of cerliorari, in this public interest writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India, issued a notification dated 26-5-1992, amending the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 and pursuant to the amendment, by the communications impugned in the writ petition, multi-metering of lcoal calls in all electronic exchanges in India in system having a capacity of 30,000 lines or more as introduced, as per which, the local calls will be metered once on answering and charged thereafter at the rate of one-call per unit for every additional 5-minutes or part thereof. The letters impugned in the writ petition have been characterized as discriminatory, in that, it had been made applicable only to local calls originating from electronic exchanges in all telephone systems, with an equipped capacity of 30,000 lines or more and not to elctro-mechanical and non-electronic exchanges. In addition, it had also been stated that the imposition of a time limit of 5-minures per call unit is arbitrary and devoid of any rational basis. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it was stated that there had been a tremendous increase in the need for telephone facility resulting in a great demand for such facilitiy for commercial and personal use and owing to the inability to satisfy that demand due to resource constraints, it had become necessary to curtail and cut down the pressure on the existing network and unnecessary congestion, and resort to the introduction of multi-metering for local calls, in all electronic exchanges within equipped capacity of 30,000 lines and more. The signalling out of electronic exchanges, according to the respondent, was owing to the non-availability of that capability in nonelectronic exchanges and the introduction of the system of multi-metering calls, confined to electronic exchanges was not, therefore, discriminatory, as the classification of exchanges, as electronic and non-electronic, was based on the technology of the working systems, in the respective exchanges. In addition, it is also pointed out that the system has been introduced by limiting the metering of the local calls once on answering and charging thereafter, at the rate of one-call unit, for every additional 5-minutes or part thereof, for the benefit of the public at large, as the common equipment in the exchange is kept busy by prolonged conversations and its object was to achieve better call-completion rate by reduction of congestion in the network, for the benefit of telephone users all over the country. The object of introducing this system, according to respondent, was not to derive extra revenue, as that could have been otherwise achieved by increasing the tariff rate.
2. In the additional counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, the respondent, explained how the facilities available in. electronic and non-electronic exchanges are different, justifying the classification of the exchanges as such and the manner in which the congestion takes place and how it is sought to be remedied by the introduction of this new method of metering.
3. The petitioner in his reply affidavit has reiterated what had earlier been put forward in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and had stated that the grounds put forward to justify the introduction of the system of multi-metering of calls, are not at all tenable.
4. The petitioner contended that the introduction of the method of metering the calls once on answering and chargaing there after at the rate of one call-unit for every additional five-minutes or part thereof, confined to electronic exchanges and not made applicable to non-electronic exchanges is, discriminatory. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though all telephone lines are connected to, and serviced through exchanges generally, in the telephone system, the equipment in all the exchanges is not the same and the electronic exchanges are computer-controlled functioning with equipment, technologically different from the other exchanges and the lines connected to an electronic exchange enjoy the benefit of additional facilities, not available in non-electronic exchanges and therefore, the classification of exchanges into electronic and non-electornic exchanges is in order.
5. The concept of a telephone being a luxury is no longer valid, as today, it is considered a necessity and also as an essential facility, which should be within the reach of everbody. Consistent with this change in the concept and also taking advantage of technological advancement, old type of exchanges are fast disappearing and new electronic exchanges have been established, though not in all places. The electronic exchanges are controlled by computers and the equipment therein is also not the same as in the nonelectronic exchanges. The range of facilities available to subscriber of electronic and non-electronic exchanges is also not the same. Indeed, subscribers connected to electronic exchanges have a whole lot of additional facilities like dynamic locking of calls for STD and/or ISD, dynamic locking of local calls; facility for the detailed print out of STD and ISD Calls, call-waiting facility; call transfer, conference facilities, abbreviated dialing, reminder call facility, hot-line facility and push-button tone dialing, the classification of exchanges into electronic and nonelectronic exchanges, based on the nature of the requirement, referable to technological advancement and the resulting availability of awide range of services enumoberated earlier, clearly establish that such classification is not only reasonable, but based on intelligible differentia. Introduction, in a situation where all exchanges are not electronic and the non-electronic exchanges do not possess the equipment capability for multi-metering of calls, of the system of multi-metering with reference to such electronic exchanges alone, as are in existence, taking note of the differences in the nature of equipment, technological capabilities and available facilities, etc., cannot be said tobe discriminatory.
6. The petitioner next contended that the charging of calls metered once on answering and thereafter at the rate of one-call unit for every additional five-minutes or part thereof, is arbitrary and unreasonable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the method had been devised and introduced only with a view to secure better call completion rate by reducing congestion and to make available the telephone facilitity to a large number of callers connected to an electronic exchange, and having regard to the object sought to be 'achieved by the introduction of that system, it cannot be labelled either as arbitrary or unreasonable.
7. Excluding free-calls, the other calls made by a subscriber have to be charged for, and that has necessarily to be done on some principle. It is for this purpose, calls are charged on a unit basis. Such an unit, can be a call, irrespective of its duration of the unit can be reckoned, based on the duration of the call, i.e. one-call for 2 or 5 minutes, as the case may be. One of the basic priniples of charging for teie-communication services is that based on the duration for which the service is used. It is also common knowledge that there is generally a tendency in the caller for long windedness, resulting almost in an unending conversation touching almost every conceivable subject under the sun. Some callers make it a point to speak to every other member of the house hold called and that too, for a long time. It is true that no one dials a telephose with a stopwatch in his hands, calculating the time spent in respect of the call. Sometimes it may also so happen that the caller may not get the correct number and the call also may not materialise for other reasons, though metered. It is also everyday experience that in some eslablishements, where telephones operate with the assistance of operators, they take their own time and that also results in the line being continuously engaged, rendered it difficult for other persons to have access to lhat line and some times interviews and seminars are also conducted over the phone, being aware that the charges therefor are only minimal, irrespective of duration. Often times, telephone subscribers also have to put up with dead telephones for several days and cable-fault is the excuse normally pleaded. Despite the aforesaid drawbacks, the importance of the telephone system as an effective and quick communication facility, cannot be belittled. In order, therefore, to secure the better mode of communication and to mitigate the difficulties, atieast with reference to callers connected to electronic exchanges, the system of multi-metering of calls has been introduced. Though in the counter-affidavit it had been initially stated that the introduction of the system had been done with a view to generally relieve congestion, in the additional counter-affidavit, the manner in which the congestion takes place and how it is sought to be removed have been very clearly explained. Therefrom, it is seen that the electronic exchange system consists of three main blocks, vi/. Block (I) - (Telephone) subsecribers and circuits connections units 'named as URA, Block (2) --Time division switching net work (called CX) and Block (3). Control Units. Subscribers are grouped into 1024 and connected to Block No. 1 consisting of subetribers unit. These 1024 subscriber connections unit is again concentrated into 4 PCM {Pulse Code Modulation), which are in turn connected to the switch, and the 4 PCM links interconnect 1024 subscribers and also the switching net work. The 4 PCMs provide for 120 (4 x 30) speech path. Likewise, another 1024 subscribers of the same electronic exchange are connected to another 4 PCM links to the same switch net work and so on. This results in 1024 subscribers connected to any particular subscriber-unit having access to switch, through 120 speech path and for each block of 1024 subscribers, the limits on the traffic handling capacity depends upon the 4 PCM links and these 120 speech paths are engaged throghout the period of conversation, irrespective of whether the call is an incoming one or outgoing one, with, reference to any of the 1024 subscribers in the unit and if the speech paths are thus engaged, the dial tone in respect of the other subscribers in the unit cannot be obtained. Further, it is seen that if the calls made arc within the same subscribers unit. 60 simultaneous conversation alone would be possible. It is thus seen that the system is not fully, non-blocking and there is likelihood of congestion, resulting in a large number of subscribers connected to the units or to the same subscriber unit, not being in a position to get the calls and that in turn leads to poor call-completion rate. By the introduction of the system for multi-metering of calls, the attempt is to discourage unduly long cover-1 sations, and that in turn, would cnablcl disengagement of the speech paths as to make them available for subscribers connected to any one subscriber-unit or even to all the subscriber-units in an electronic exchange. In order, therefore, to achieve this and, the time limit of five minutes had been introduced providing for the metering at the rate of one call unit for every 5-minutes. Considering the facilites available in an electronic exchange and also to see to it that such facilities are made use of by a large section of the public, who may feel the need for such use, the system introduced should be regarded as a welcome move and cannot at all be considered to be either arbitrary or unreasonable as contended by the petitioner.
8. It is also necessary to draw attention to the report submitted by the Social Audit Panel, constituted by the Ministry of Communications and headed by Chief Justice P. N. Bhagwati (Retd.). In paragraph 2.8.0 of the Action Report of the Panel under the heading "Measures to Decongest Lines." It is pointed out that the proposal that local calls in large cities would henceforth be charged as one unit for every five minutes of conversation is welcome as a step in the right direction and to overcome the general shortage of junction lines between telephone exchanges and of lines assigned to special services and also to minimise the shortage aggravated by the low service ability of the lines. The method of charging the calls, as now proposed, will also enable the callers connected to electronic exchanges, to confine their conversation, be it business or pleasure, to essential matters and that would also relieve congestion in the lines, so that the use telephone as a facility, could be availed of by many and not only a few.
9. There is no substance in the argument, faintly attempted to be made, that the introduction of the impugned system is only an attempt to secure additional revenue. For, if that was the real object, that could have been secured by hiking the rate for the calls. Equally, the argument that a subscriber is free to use the telephone as he/she likes or even as long as he/she likes, does not carry any conviction when the use of telephone is considered a facility, which should be used by the callers with advantage to themselves and also the other subscribers. In any event, the use of the telephone as a facility for quick and effective communication with another, cannot be used by one to the detriment of other users.
10. It is thus seen that the introduction of the system impugned in the writ petition is related to the object of relieving congestion in the lines connected to an electronic exchange and to make available the facility of the use of the telephone to other subscribers as well and it cannot, therefore, be characterized either as 1 arbitrary or as unreasonable.
11. In Rishnanth T. Popat v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (Judgment in W.P. No. 1325 of 1992, dated 15-6-1992 of the Bombay High Court), the challenge to the impugned letters on almost identical grounds, had been negatived. A similar view was also taken in Bombay Telephone Users' Association etc. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. etc. (Judgment in W.P. No. 1359 of 1992, dated 21-7-1992 of the Bombay High Court). Though the petitioner invited our attention to certain decisions with reference to discrimination and the arbitrary and unreasonable nature of the basis for charging of the calls, in view of what we have stated earlier, we do not think it necessary to make a detailed reference to all to them.
12. Thus, looked at from any point of view, the challenge to the letters impugned in the writ petition cannot be upheld. Consequently the rule nisi is discharged and the writ petition is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
13. Petition dismissed.