Decided on October 05,1960



K.Ahmad, J. - (1.)This application in revision is by the defendant the Union of India. The opposite Party is a licensee of a Murphy radio set, Model No. TU-196. The application arises out of a Small Cause Court suit which was disposed of by the order dated the 9th July 1959, and wherein the relief sought by the plaintiff was for the recovery of Rs. 43.75 nP. which was made up of Rs. 15/-paid as renewal fee for the year 1957, of Rs. 20/-paid as surcharge and of Rs. 8.75 nP. claimed as cost of notice etc. The trial court, on hearing the parties", decreed the suit, as framed and hence this application as already stated by the defendant.
(2.)It appears that up to the month of May 1956 the plaintiff, along with her father, lived at Bhagalpur. Accordingly, the radio licence lor the year 1956 was renewed at Bhagalpur on the 5th January, 1956. Thereafter some time in June, 1956, the father of the plaintiff was transferred from Bhagalpur to Madhipura and she accompanied him along with the raido set and was there up to July, 1958. Unfortunately at Madhipura, there was no electricity in the town and hence the aforesaid radio set could not be used by her from July, 1956 to July 1958. Accordingly the plaintiff did not get the radio licence renewed in the year 1957. Thereafter some time in November 1957 she received a notice from the Postal Department calling upon her to explain the circumstances under which the licence for the year 1957 had not been renewed. In answer thereto the plaintiff stated the aforesaid facts, and further sent a certificate from a local radio dealer to the effect that the radio set of the plaintiff was an A/C, D/C set and, as such could not be used without the help of electricity. Perhaps in the opinion of the Postal Department this could not be a valid ground for exemption from renewal of the radio licence for the year 1957. Accordingly thereafter the Postal Department wrote a letter drawing the attention of the plaintiff to condition No. 7 printed at the back of the licence. This the plaintiff met by saying that the aforesaid condition No. 7 was not applicable to the facts of her case. Subsequently however the plaintiff under protest, paid the renewal fee for the year 1957 as also the surcharge of Rs. 20, and, thereafter, brought the suit giving rise to the present application on the grounds as already stated above.
(3.)Now so far as the question of licence ot a radio set is concerned that seems to be covered by two Acts: (1) by the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and (2) by the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933. Under both the Acts, there is provision given for the framing of rules as provided thereunder. In the ease of the former Act, namely, the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, that provision is to be found in Sec, 7 while the latter Act, namely, the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act it is to be found in Section 10. The rules under the Indian Telegraph Act were perhaps framed in accordance with the aforesaid provisions sometimes in the year 1940 and were named as "Rules for the Licensing of Wireless Receiving Apparatus, 1940", while the rules under die latter Act namely, the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933, seem to have been framed in the year 1933 and were named as "The Indian Wireless Telegraphy (Possession) Rules 1933." Section 4 ot the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, inter alia provides that,
"Within the provinces the Central Government shall have the exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs:"
Provided that the Central Government may grant a license, on such conditions and in consideration of such payments as it thinks fit, to any person to establish, maintain or work a telegraph within any part of the provinces: Provided further that the Central Government may by rules made under this Act, and published in the Official Gazette, permit subject to such restrictions and conditions as it thinks fit the establish-ment, maintenance and working
(a) of wireless telegraphs on ships within Indian Territorial waters and on aircraft within or above the Provinces or Indian Territorial waters and (b) of telegraphs other than wireless telegraphs within any part of the Provinces."
As against that the preamble to the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, provides that
"Whereas it is expedient to regulate the possession of wireless telegraphy apparatus in India, it is hereby enacted as follows:"

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.