From the Judgment and order dated 28th March 1969 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.
The Trial Court allowed the writ petition.
The petitioner alleged that the telephone system is a public utility service and number a Revenue earning establishment and the charges can be only in the nature of a fee which must be companymensurate with the companyt of rendering the service.
The petitioner further alleged that the loss incurred by the Government in another establishment service is number a legitimate ground for raising telephone rates.
Under the rules, the rental and call charges were increased by 50 per cent and Trunk call charges by about 30 to 35 per cent.
He filed a writ petition in the High Court for a writ of prohibition, directing the General Manager Telephones , Madras to forbear from preferred to the Appellate Tribunal but that too proved abortive.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
S. Ramamurthy, K. Jayaram and R. Chandrashekhar for the Appellant.
The appellant is a retired District Manager Telephones , Madras.
The Trial Court held that Telephone Tariff was unjust and unreasonable.
325 of 1970.
N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India, S. N. Prasad and Girish Chandra for the Respondents.
490/68.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY J. This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 28 March 1469 of the High Court of Madras.
enforcing the revised Telephone Tariff as per the Indian Telegraph Amendment Rules, 1966.
The question in this appeal is whether the appellant in a writ petition can challenge the telephone rates and charges and obtain any relief in that behalf.
The Tribunal, however, referred the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court 1 .1966 60 I.T.R. 293.
