- (1.)Heard Mr. T. Ravi Kumar for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ramakumar, Senior central Government Standing Counsel, for the respondents. We also heard Mr. John varghese, Additional Central Government standing Counsel, who appeared for the respondents in O. P. No. 6115 of 1997, which is also on the same subject matter.
(2.)The petitioner is an Advocate on the rolls of the Kerala Bar Council, who is practising in this Court and in other Courts and Tribunals. He applied for a new telephone connection within the territorial jurisdiction of Parur Telephone Exchange in 1997. He made a representation on 13-2-1997 explaining the hardships faced by him due to the lack of telephone connection at his office and requested to give new telephone connection to the petitioner at his office on a priority basis considering his profession as a lawyer. He also stated in the representation that he had obtained telephone connection at his house in the ordinary category. The representation is marked as Ext. P-3. The sub-Divisional Engineer, Department of telecommunications, North Paravoor sent a reply to Ext. P-3 representation informing the petitioner that for getting a new telephone connection on priority basis by including his name in the Non-OYT (Special) Category, the petitioner should not have a phone connection either at his office or at his residence and since the petitioner has a telephone at his residence, he is not eligible for special category registration. The reply is produced as Ext. P-4. It is useful to reproduce Ext. P-4 communication. "sub. : New Phone conn, under Spl. Cat.- Reg. Ref. : Your letter dt. 20-1-97. Sir, Kindly refer to the letter cited above. It is informed that Advocates who do not have the facility of phone either at the office or residence are eligible for spl. category regn. Since you have a telephone at the residence you are not eligible for special cat. regn. Yours faithfully. "the petitioner, on enquiry, was given to understand that the 2nd respondent, vide instructions circulated to all Chief General managers, Telecom Circle/telegrams under letter No. 2-13/96-PHA, dated 17-6-1996, formulated a scheme for including advocates in the Non-OYT (Special) Category with many pre-conditions. Copy of the above communication is produced and marked as ext. P-5, which reads thus:"sub. :- Inclusion of Advocates in Non-OYT/special Category for provision of New Telephone -policy - Reg.-It has been decided to include the advocate in Non/oyt/spl. Category for provision of New telephone connection subject to fulfilment of the following conditions:- (1) That the Advocates should have a minimum of five years standing at the Bar or must be an Income-tax assessee for the past two years as on the date of application provided:- (i) He/she does not have the facility of phone either at the office or residence on the date of application for telephone connection. (ii) He/her close relations viz. , wife/ husband, son, unmarried daughter residing in the same house are not already having a telephone connection. (iii) If he/she is already having more than one office and the facility of phone is already existing in any area of the office/residence, he/she will not be eligible to be included in this category. These instructions will come into force with immediate effect. "it is submitted by Mr. Ravi Kumar that ext. P-5 stipulates that if an Advocate does not have a minimum of five years' practice or alternatively, if he is not an income-tax assessee for the past two years as on the date of application he cannot be included in the Non-OYT (Special) Category for providing new telephone connection and hence, Ext. P-5 cannot be considered to be a fair or reasonable or judicial exercise of power by the 2nd respondent. He further submitted that such classification denies the privileges of special category to advocates who have less than two years practice even though he became an income-tax assessee after enrolment as advocate. The impugned instructions under Ext. P-5 have also been reflected in the telephone directory for 1997 published by all the Telecommunication circles under the 2nd respondent. It is pointed out by Mr. Ravi Kumar that among the special categories, only against advocates such pre-conditions have been stipulated. The relevant page of the telephone directory issued by the department is produced as Ext. P-6, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:the petitioner has filed the writ petition in larger public interest of the legal fraternity and on his personal behalf, objecting to the manner in which the advocates have been imposed with many pre-requisites for being included in the Non-OYT (Special) Category. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the conditions now imposed against advocates are discriminatory, illegal and unreasonable, and have no nexus whatsoever to the objects sought to be achieved.
(3.)According to Mr. Ravi Kumar, the insistence of pre-conditions only against advocates for eligibility for new telephone connection on a priority basis is very prejudicial on the part of the respondents. Counsel submits that it is not discernible under what circumstances the respondents have imposed severe restrictive pre-conditions in the case of lawyers, which are not imposed upon any other class or category. The pre-conditions imposed are also attacked as illogical, illegal and unwarranted and violative of Arts. 14, 19 (1) (g) and 39-A of the Constitution of india. According to Counsel, the condition in para 1 of Ext. P-5 classify the advocates into two categories for a privilege on the basis of experience at the bar and on the basis of income, which has resulted in degrading the status of the legal fraternity as a whole, since, according to him, it is totally unwarranted and illegal in the historical and practical backgrounds of the legal profession, which plays a pivotal role in the administration of justice.