Hukum Chand Shyam lal Vs Union of India (1976) 2 SCC

128

Submitted by

Ishita Rathi

Batch 2020-25, Division-B, BBA.LLB,

PRN- 20010224234

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

In

September, 2022

Under the guidance of

Ms. Ipsita Ray

Administrative Law (Course-in-Charge)

Assistant Professor
 CERTIFICATE

The Case Analysis entitled “Hukum Chand Shyam lal Vs Union of India
(1976) 2 SCC 128” submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for
Administrative Law as part of Internal Continuous Evaluation is based on my
research, produced under the supervision of Ms. Ipsita Ray.

The content incorporated in this case analysis is doggedly fact-checked and

obtained from reliable, and authentic sources.

I acknowledge that I would be held accountable for any plagiarized content

detected in my case analysis surpass the prescribed limit.

Signature of the Candidate: Ishita Rathi

Date: September 06, 2022

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I want to express my sincere gratitude towards Ms. Ipsita Ray for being an
amazing mentor for me. I would also like to thank you for encouraging my
research and for allowing me to grow as a research student. Through your
guidance and supervision, I could understand this case in-depth and clarified
my doubts whenever they clouded my mind.

I would also like to appreciate the cooperation of the library department and
academic support of Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA, for providing me fact-
checked E-Resources to produce my case analysis with authenticity.

Finally, I would like to thank Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA, for including
case analysis as an essential component of the Administrative Law to
understand specific cases thoroughly.
 FACTS

In this case, the plaintiffs' telephone lines were deactivated and temporarily
seized on specific dates by the Police chief, North District & the General
Manager, Telephone lines, operating on the orders of Administrator, Delhi,
who was individually pleased that they were engaging in huge "criminal
forward trading (satta)" in farm products via their phone lines. The
Instructions were allegedly issued in accordance with "Sec 5(1) of the Indian
Telegraphs Act (ITA), 1895 and Rule 422 of Indian Telegraphs Rules
(ITR),1951". The plaintiffs challenged these commands in a writ petition filed
under Art. 226 of Indian Constitution, which was granted by the High Court
judge, culminating in a special appeal by the Union of India, which was
acknowledged.1

The emergency envisaged by Rule 422 is not identical to the "public

emergency" proclaimed under Section 5, but "any emergency", the presence
of which was to be formed to the gratification of the Divisional Engineer
& not any superfluous power, the appellate Bench of the High Court
declared, (1) that the necessity of notice could've been dispensed with under
Rule 422, General Manager Telephones, he could waive the notice
requirement under that rule if he was pleased that the telephone lines were
being utilized by customers for illegal forward trading; (2) that certain use
was incompatible with the public interest in light of the presence of a
"economic" emergency; & (3) that the words "any emergency" in Rule 422
incorporates "economic emergency"; (4) that, based on the certificate
confirming the presence of "economic emergency", the Divisional Manager

1
1976 AIR 789, 1976 SCR (2)1060
was proficient to issue the contested order in exertion of his forces under
Rule 422.2
LEGAL ISSUE & ANALYSIS

The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court to overturn the General
Manager's orders and the renewal of their telecommunications systems. In
this regard, it was emphasized that the word "emergency" in "Rule 422" is
not eligible by the notation "public," but rather "any emergency."

These arguments were rejected by the HC. The necessity of notification, in

its opinion, could be waived under the rule if the Gen. Manager was pleased
that the users were utilizing the telephone lines for "illegal forward trading"
& that such use was against the public interest in light of the existence of a
"economic emergency". It also maintained that the terms "any emergency"
in Rule 422 include an "economic emergency," based on the Delhi
Administration's certificate regarding the existence of a "economic
emergency" issued under Section 5. The Manager was proficient to issue the
contested orders in the exercise of his powers under Rule 422.  As a result,
it overturned the Judge's decision and rejected the writ petition, noting that
"the telephone officials must recognize these interruptions as momentary &
permit the appellants to re-establish their interconnection if the GM is
pleased that the crisis resulting by the lack of supply of the products about
which forward trading was completely forbidden has passed." 3

In the event of a public emergency or safety, the Central or State

Government, or any executive notably allowed in this regard by the
government, may, unless contented that it's essential or desirable,
2
1976 AIR 789, 1976 SCR (2)1060
3
1976 AIR 789, 1976 SCR (2)1060
to undertake temporary possession (for the duration of the public
emergency or public safety) of any telegraph formed, sustained, or
operated.4

The phrase "any emergency" in "Rule 422" appears to have a broader scope

than the phrase "public emergency" in Section 5. As a result, the Divisional
Engineer is responsible for determining the presence of "any emergency"
under the rule. He must base his decision on subject matter, that could
include any document or certification issued by the appropriate govt
indicating the onset of a "public emergency." The rule requires the DE to
record such contentment, along with the reasons for it. This will serve as a
barebones defence against the unordered use of this powerful authority. In
this regard, it will not be out of place to notice that, at the time the
contested action in this case was taken, (2) of Section 5, that formed
the Central/State Government's certificate resulting evidence as to the
presence of a "public emergency," remained eliminated & supplanted by a
distinct provision. This is a supplemental justification for concluding that the
DE was required to determine whether an emergency emerged prior to
actually acting in accordance with that Rule.5

4
1976 AIR 789, 1976 SCR (2)1060

5
1976 AIR 789, 1976 SCR (2)1060
 CONCLUSION

Presuming the GM had the authority to issue a command in accordance with

Rule, the authority has been primarily used based on a factor that is
irrelevant to this Rule's requirements.This reason is that unauthorised
forward trading in agricultural products is being practised on a large scale
through the telephones in question at the Coronation Hotel, Fatehpuri
premises, according to the Delhi Administration Notification, which was
reproduced in the contested order of the GM, Telephones. In different terms,
the main justification for the contested action is that the appellants have
been using these telephone lines in an inappropriate or unlawful manner. 

This is well established that when an authority must be used by a specific

jurisdiction in a specific way, it must be used in that way or not at all, and all
other performance modes are inevitably prohibited. When power is exercised
in a way that goes against the fundamental rules of natural justice, as is the
case when it is of a severe nature, it is even more important to follow this
rule. Presently, in this instance, if the appellants' telephones were to be
disengaged due to misuse, they first had to give them the chance to respond
in accordance with the natural justice principles before acting in accordance
with "Rule 416 & 427".
 REFERENCE

 1976 AIR 789, 1976 SCR (2)1060