{"id":49918,"date":"1975-12-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-12-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975"},"modified":"2018-06-26T17:08:31","modified_gmt":"2018-06-26T11:38:31","slug":"hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975","title":{"rendered":"Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 December, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 December, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 789, \t\t 1976 SCR (2)1060<\/div>\n
Author: R S Sarkaria<\/div>\n
Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nHUKAM CHAND SHYAM LAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT17\/12\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nSHINGAL, P.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR  789\t\t  1976 SCR  (2)1060\n 1976 SCC  (2) 128\n\n\nACT:\n     Indias Telegraphs\tAct, 1895-S. 5(1)-Read with Rule 422\nof  the\t Indian\t Telegraphs  Rules,  1951-Whether  statutory\nnotice is  mandatory-\"Economic Emergency\" does not amount to\n\"public emergency\"  within the\tmeaning of s 5- Scope of the\nwords \"Any  emergency\"\tin  Rule  422  vis-a-vis  the  words\n\"public emergency\"  in s.  5-Exercise of  power of a drastic\nnature in  a mode  other than the one provided, is violative\nof the fundamental principles of natural justice.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellants'  telephones were disconnected and taken\ntemporary possession  of by  the Superintendent\t of  Police,\nNorth  District\t  and  the   General   Manager,\t  Telephones\nrespectively on\t various dates acting under the instructions\nof the\tAdministrator, Delhi,  who was\tpersonally satisfied\nthat  illegal\tforward\t trading   (satta)  in\tagricultural\ncommodities was\t being practised  on a\tlarge scale  by them\nthrough their  telephones. The\tOrders were purportedly made\nunder s.  5(1) of  the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1895, and Rule\n422 of\tthe Indian Telegraphs Rules, 1951. These orders were\nassailed by the appellants by a writ petition under Art. 226\nof the\tConstitution which  was allowed by a single Judge of\nthe High  Court, resulting  in a special appeal by the Union\nof India, which was accepted.\n     Negativing the contention of the appellants\/respondents\nviz.;  that   the  impugned   action  of  disconnection\t and\ntemporary taking over of the telephones was bad because:-\n     (a) No  statutory notice  was ever\t given\tas  required\nunder Rules 421 and 422.\n     (b) The  Divisional Engineer did not apply his mind and\nrecord his  own satisfaction  about the\t existence  of\t\"any\nemergency\" and\tas such\t there was  a contravention of Rules\n421 and 422 which had to be read together.\n     (c) The  reason given  in the  order to the effect that\nthe appellants\twere making  illegal and improper use of the\ntelephones  by\ttransmitting  messages\tand  information  in\nregard\tto   Satta  business  which  had  been\tbanned,\t was\nirrelevant and extraneous to Rule 422.\n     (d) The  emergency contemplated  by Rule 422 is not the\nsame as\t \"public emergency\"  declared under  s. 5,  but \"any\nemergency\", the\t existence of which was to be established to\nthe satisfaction  of the  Divisional Engineer  and  not\t any\nextraneous authority,  the appellate Bench of the High Court\nheld, (i) that, the requirement of notice could be dispensed\nwith under Rule 422 by the General Manager Telephones, if he\nwas satisfied  that the\t telephones were  being used  by the\nsubscribers for\t illegal forward trading (ii) that, such use\nwas contrary  to public interest in view of the existence of\n\"economic\" emergency  (iii) that  the words \" any emergency\"\nin Rule\t 422 includes an \"economic emergency\" and (iv) that,\non the\tbasis of  the certificate in regard to the existence\nof  an\t'economic  emergency\"  the  Divisional\tManager\t was\ncompetent to  pass the\timpugned order\tin exercise  of\t his\npowers under Rule 422.\n     While allowing the appeals by special leave the Court,\n^\n     HELD :  (1) S. 5(1) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1895,\nif properly construed does not confer unguided and unbridled\npower on  the Central  Government\/State Government\/Specially\nAuthorised Officer  to take  possession\t of  any  telegraph.\n[1065 C]\n1061\n     (2) Conditions  pre-requisite for the exercise of power\nunder this section and Rule 422 are:\n     (a) the  occurrence of  a \"public\temergency\"  not\t any\nother kind of emergency.\n     (b) recording  of its  satisfaction as to the existence\nof such\t an emergency  by the  Government or  the  Authority\nconcerned on  grounds germane  to an  action under  the rule\n[1065 C-D]\n     (3) The  expression \"public  emergency\"  has  not\tbeen\ndefined in  the statute.  Read as a whole, s.5, with the two\nphrases in  sub-section (i)  viz. \"occurrence  of any public\nemergency\" and\t\"or  in\t the  interest\tof  public  safety\",\nclarifies   that    a\t\"public\t  emergency\",\twithin\t the\ncontemplation of  that section, is one which raises problems\nconcerning the\tinterest of  public safety\", the sovereignty\nand integrity  of India, the security of the State, friendly\nrelations with\tforeign\t States\t or  public  order,  or\t the\nprevention of incitement to the commission of an offence. It\nis in  the context  of these  matters that  the\t appropriate\nauthority  has\tto  form  an  opinion  with  regard  to\t the\noccurrence of  a \"public  emergency\" with  a view  to taking\nfurther action under s. 5. [1065 D-F]\n     (4) \"Economic  Emergency\" is  not one  of these matters\nexpressly  mentioned   in  the\t statute.   Mere   \"economic\nemergency\"  may\t  not  necessarily   amount  to\t  a  \"public\nemergency\" and\tjustify action\tunder s.  5 unless it raises\nproblems relating to the matters indicated therein. [1065 F-\nG]\n     (5) Notice under Rule 421 cannot be dispensed with. The\nscope of the words \"any emergency\" in Rule 422 is wider than\nthe expression \"public emergency\" under s. 5. The subjective\nsatisfaction as\t to the\t existence of  \"any emergency\" under\nRule 422  is that  of the Divisional Engineer, on a rational\nbasis on relevant material which may include any certificate\nor report of the appropriate Government as to the occurrence\nof a  \"public emergency\".  The requirement of recording such\nsatisfaction  by   the\tDivisional   Engineer  with  reasons\ntherefor, is  implicit in  the Rule.  That will be a minimal\nsafeguard against  arbitrary exercise  of the drastic power.\n[1066 A, C-D]\n     (6)  The  ground  for  disconnection  and\ttaking\tover\ntemporary possession  of the  telephones viz., 'that illegal\nforward trading (satta) in agricultural commodities is being\npractised\" amounts to \"improper or illegal use of telegraphs\nand is\tnot a  relevant consideration  under Rule  422.\t The\nappropriate course  to be  followed was that laid down in R.\n427 read  with Rr.  416 and 421, after giving an opportunity\nto explain  their conduct, in consonance with the principles\nof natural justice. [1066 F-G]\n     (6) It  is well-settled  that where a power is required\nto be  exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it\nshould be  exercised in that manner or not at all, and other\nmodes of  performance are  necessarily forbidden.  It is all\nthe more  necessary to\tobserve this rule where the power is\nof a  drastic nature  and, its exercise in a mode other than\nthe one\t provided, will\t be  violative\tof  the\t fundamental\nprinciple of  natural justice.\tResort to the wrong and more\ndrastic course\tprovided in  rule 422, on a ground which was\nnot germane  to an  action  under  that\t rule  violates\t the\nimpugned order,\t particularly when  it is  manifest, in\t the\ninstant case  that the authority was influenced more by this\nground and  less, if  at all,  by the  existence of  \"public\nemergency\" certified by the State [1066 H, 1067 A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeals Nos. 1848
\nand 1849 of 1974.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals by\t Special Leave\tfrom the Judgment and Orders
\ndated the  27-11-1973 &\t 23-5-74 of  the Delhi High Court in
\nL.P.A.\tNo.   172\/73  and   Civil  Writ\t  No.  237  of\t1974
\nrespectively.\n<\/p>\n
     Hardyal Hardy,  S. K.  Mehta, K.  R. Nagaraja and P. N.
\nPuri for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
1062<\/span><\/p>\n
     Mrs. Shyamla  Pappu and  Girish Chandra for Respondents
\n1-3.\n<\/p>\n
     R. N. Sachthey for Respondents 4-5.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SARKARIA, J.  This judgment will govern the disposal of
\nthese two  appeals which  arise out  of a common judgment of
\nthe High  Court of Delhi dismissing the writ petitions filed
\nby the\tappellants and\tothers, under  Article\t226  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
     On November  27, 1972, the Administrator of Delhi, made
\nan order  under s. 5 of the Indian Telegraphs Act. 1885 (for
\nshort, the  Act) authorising  the Superintendent  of Police,
\nNorth District,\t to take temporary possession “until further
\norders” of  certain specified  telephones installed in rooms
\nand cabins  of\tthe  building  known  as  Coronation  Hotel,
\nFatehpuri, Delhi. The order reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Whereas the\tAdministrator of  Delhi is satisfied
\n     that illegal  forward trading  (satta) in\tagricultural
\n     commodities is being practised on a large scale through
\n     the following  telephones installed in the rooms\/cabins
\n     in the  premises of  the Coronation  Hotel,  Fatehpuri,
\n     Delhi, thereby  affecting adversely  the price  of\t the
\n     supply essential to the life of the community.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Whereas   public    emergency\t  exists   and\t the
\n     Administrator, Delhi is satisfied that the continuation
\n     of\t satta\t at  the   aforesaid  premises\tthrough\t the
\n     telephones\t given\t above\tis   prejudicial  to  public
\n     interest and  as such it is necessary to take temporary
\n     possession of  all the  aforesaid telephones  from\t the
\n     premises in question.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Another order  in similar terms was made on December 4,
\n1972 by\t the Administrator  for taking\tover  certain  other
\ntelephones.\n<\/p>\n
     Four subscribers,\twho were  affected by  these  orders
\nchallenged their  validity by  writ petitions  in  the\tHigh
\nCourt. A Bench of the High Court allowed those petitions and
\nquashed the  orders in\tquestion on  the ground\t that resort
\ncannot be  had to  s. 5(1)  of the  Act for taking temporary
\npossession of the subscribers’ telephones.\n<\/p>\n
     The  General  Manager,  Telephones,  Delhi\t also,\tmade
\norders on November 28, 1972 and December 5, 1972, purporting
\nto act\tunder Rule 422 of the Indian Telegraphs Rules, 1951,
\n(for short,  the Rules) for disconnecting the telephones and
\nnon-exchange lines.  One of those orders, dated November 28,
\n1972, may be extracted as a specimen:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The Delhi Administration has certified vide order
\n     No.  F5\/20\/72\/C-HG\t  dated\t  27-11-1972   that   public
\n     emergency exists  and that\t continuation of  “satta’ at
\n     the premises  of Coronation Hotel Fatehpuri through the
\n     telephones is pre judicial to public interest.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1063<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  The  undersigned   in\t exercise   of\tthe   powers
\n     conferred under  rule 422\tof Indian  Telegraphs Rules,
\n     1951 hereby  orders to  disconnect the  telephones\t and
\n     Non-exchange Lines\t mentioned in  the list\t supplied by
\n     Delhi Administration (copy attached).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Thereupon the  appellants filed C.W. 470 of 1973 in the
\nHigh Court  praying for\t a writ to quash these orders of the
\nGeneral Manager\t and  for  restoration\tof  their  telephone
\nconnections. This  writ petition  was  heard  by  a  learned
\nSingle Judge  of the  High Court  who allowed  the same\t and
\nquashed the  impugned orders  and further  directed that the
\ntelephones be restored to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     Aggrieved, the  Union of  India and  other\t respondents
\ncarried a  special appeal to the appellate Bench of the High
\nCourt. Before  the appellate Bench it was contended that the
\nimpugned action\t was bad  because: (a)\tno prior  notice  in
\nregard to  the same  was given\tto the\tappellants; (b)\t the
\nDivisional Engineer  did not  apply his\t mind and record his
\nown satisfaction about the existence of any emergency and as
\nsuch there  was a  contravention of  Rules 421 and 422 which
\nhad to\tbe read\t together;  (c)\t the  reason  given  in\t the
\nimpugned order,\t to the\t effect, that  the  appellants\twere
\nmaking illegal and improper use of their telephones inasmuch
\nas they were transmitting messages and information in regard
\nto satta  business which had been banned, was irrelevant and
\nextraneous to  Rule 422\t under which the impugned action has
\nbeen purportedly  taken; (d)  the emergency  contemplated by
\nRule 422  is not  the same  as a ‘public emergency’ declared
\nunder s.5,  but is an emergency arising out of the breakdown
\nof the\ttelecommunications due to a technical defect, labour
\ntrouble, vis major, fire or the like, the existence of which
\nwas to\tbe established to the satisfaction of the Divisional
\nEngineer and  not any extraneous authority. Stress was laid,
\nin this connection, on the fact that the word “emergency” in
\nRule 422  is not  qualified by the prefix “public”, instead,
\nthe words used are “any emergency”.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court negatived\tthese  contentions.  In\t its
\nopinion, the  requirement of  notice could be dispensed with
\nunder  r.  422\tif  the\t General  Manager,  Telephones,\t was
\nsatisfied  that\t the  telephones  were\tbeing  used  by\t the
\nsubscribers for\t illegal forward  trading and  that such use
\nwas contrary  to public interest in view of the existence of
\n“economic” emergency.  It further  held that  the words “any
\nemergency” in  Rule 422 include an ‘economic emergency’, and
\non the\tbasis of  the certificate in regard to the existence
\nof an  “economic emergency”  issued under s. 5, by the Delhi
\nAdministration. The  Divisional\t Manager  was  competent  in
\nexercise of  his powers\t under Rule 422 to pass the impugned
\norders. In  the result,\t it set\t aside the  decision of\t the
\nlearned Single\tJudge and  dismissed the  writ petition with
\nthe observation that “the telephone authorities should treat
\nthese disconnections  as temporary and allow the petitioners
\nto get\tback their  connections, if  the General  Manager is
\nsatisfied that\tthe emergency  caused  by  the\tshortage  in
\nsupply of  the commodities  on which the forward trading was
\nbanned, was over”.\n<\/p>\n
1064<\/span><\/p>\n
     Hence these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     The contentions  canvassed before\tthe High  Court have
\nbeen repeated  before us.  Before dealing  with the same, it
\nwill be\t worthwhile to have a look at the relevant statutory
\nprovisions.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 5 of the Act provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(1) On the occurrence of any public emergency, or
\n\t       in the  interest of  the public\tsafety,\t the
\n\t       Central Government or State Government or any
\n\t       officer specially  authorised in\t this behalf
\n\t       by  the\t Central  Government   or  a   State
\n\t       Government  may,\t if  satisfied\tthat  it  is
\n\t       necessary  or   expedient  so   to  do,\ttake
\n\t       temporary possession  (for  so  long  as\t the
\n\t       public emergency\t exists or  the interest  of
\n\t       the public safety requires the taking of such
\n\t       action)\t of   any   telegraph\testablished,
\n\t       maintained or  worked by\t any person licensed
\n\t       under this Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t  (2)  On the  occurrence of any public emergency or
\n\t       in the  interest of  the public\tsafety,\t the
\n\t       Central Government  or a\t State Government or
\n\t       any  officer  specially\tauthorised  in\tthis
\n\t       behalf by  the Central  Government or a State
\n\t       Government  may,\t if  satisfied\tthat  it  is
\n\t       necessary  or  expedient\t so  to\t do  in\t the
\n\t       interest of  the sovereignty and integrity of
\n\t       India, the  security of\tthe State,  friendly
\n\t       relations with foreign States or public order
\n\t       or   for\t  preventing   incitement   to\t the
\n\t       commission of  an offence,  for reasons to be
\n\t       recorded in  writing, by\t order, direct\tthat
\n\t       any message  or class  of messages to or from
\n\t       any person or class of persons or relating to
\n\t       any   particular\t   subject,   brought\t for
\n\t       transmission by or transmitted or received by
\n\t       any telegraph,  shall not  be transmitted, or
\n\t       shall be intercepted or detained, or shall be
\n\t       disclosed to  the Government making the order
\n\t       or an officer thereof mentioned in the order:
\n\t  Provided  that   press  messages  intended  to  be
\n     published in  India of correspondents accredited to the
\n     Central Government\t or a  State Government shall not be
\n     intercepted or  detained, unless their transmission has
\n     been prohibited under this sub-section.”
\n     The material rules are these:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “421.\t Disconnection\t of  telephones.-Where\t the
\n     Divisional Engineer  is satisfied\tfor  reasons  to  be
\n     recorded in  writing that\tit is necessary to do so, he
\n     may, after\t giving the  subscriber a  notice in writing
\n     for a  period which  shall not except in emergent cases
\n     be less  than 7  days, disconnect the telephone, and in
\n     such case,\t the subscriber\t shall be entitled to refund
\n     of rent  for the  unexpired portion  of the  period for
\n     which the connection or service was given.\n<\/p>\n
1065<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  422.\tRight  of  disconnection  in  emergency.-The
\n     Divisional Engineer may, in the event of any emergency,
\n     disconnect any  subscriber, with  or without notice. In
\n     case such disconnection exceeds a period of seven days,
\n     the  subscriber  shall  be\t entitled  to  proportionate
\n     refund of rent.\n<\/p>\n
\t  427. Illegal\tor  improper  use  of  telephones.-A
\n     subscriber shall  be personally responsible for the use
\n     of his telephone. No telephone shall be used to disturb
\n     or irritate  any person  or for the transmission of any
\n     message or\t communication which  is of  an indecent  or
\n     obscene nature  or is calculated to annoy any person or
\n     to disrupt the maintenance of public order in any other
\n     manner contrary to any provision of law.”
\n     Section 5(1),  if properly\t construed, does  not confer
\nunguided and unbridled power on the Central Government\/State
\nGovernment\/Specially Authorised\t Officer to  take possession
\nof any\ttelegraph. Firstly,  the  occurrence  of  a  ‘public
\nemergency’ is  the sine\t qua non  for the  exercise of power
\nunder this section. As a preliminary step to the exercise of
\nfurther jurisdiction  under this  section the  Government or
\nthe authority  concerned must  record its satisfaction as to
\nthe existence  of such\tan emergency. Further, the existence
\nof the\temergency which\t is a pre-requisite for the exercise
\nof power  under this  section, must  be a ‘public emergency’
\nand not\t any other kind of emergency. The expression ‘public
\nemergency’ has not been defined in the statute, but contours
\nbroadly delineating  its scope\tand features are discernible
\nfrom the  section which\t has to\t read as  a whole.  In\tsub-
\nsection (1)  the phrase ‘occurrence of any public emergency’
\nis connected  with and is immediately followed by the phrase
\n“or in\tthe interests  of  the\tpublic\tsafety”.  These\t two
\nphrases appear\tto take colour from each other. In the first
\npart  of  sub-s.  (2)  these  two  phrases  again  occur  in
\nassociation  with   each  other,  and  the  context  further
\nclarifies, with\t amplification, that  a\t ‘public  emergency’
\nwithin the contemplation of this section is one which raises
\nproblems concerning  the interest  of the public safety, the
\nsovereignty and\t integrity of  India, the  security  of\t the
\nState, friendly\t relations with\t foreign  States  or  public
\norder or  the prevention  of incitement to the commission of
\nan offence.  It is  in the context of these matters that the
\nappropriate authority  has to form an opinion with regard to
\nthe occurrence of a ‘public emergency’ with a view to taking
\nfurther action under this section. Economic emergency is not
\none of\tthose matters  expressly mentioned  in the  statute.
\nMere ‘economic emergency’-as the High Court calls it-may not
\nnecessarily amount  to\ta  ‘public  emergency’\tand  justify
\naction under this section unless it raises problems relating
\nto the matters indicated in the section.\n<\/p>\n
     Rules 421 and 422 occur in serial order in a section of
\nPart V\tunder the  group caption, “Telephone connections and
\nother services”.  Rule 421  requires the Divisional Engineer
\nto record  his satisfaction,  supported by  reasons, for the
\nproposed disconnection of the telephone. It further requires
\nthat  authority\t  to  give   a\tnotice\tin  writing  to\t the
\nsubscriber. Such notice shall ordinarily be of not less than
\nseven
\n1066<\/span>
\ndays. In  emergent cases,  the period  of this notice can be
\nless than  seven days. But even in emergent cases under this
\nRule, the notice cannot be dispensed with altogether.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule 422 empowers the Divisional Engineer to disconnect
\nany subscriber\t‘in the\t event of  any\temergency’  with  or
\nwithout notice.\t The existence\tof “any\t emergency”  to\t the
\nsatisfaction of\t the Divisional\t Engineer, appears  to be  a
\nnecessary pre-requisite\t to the\t exercise of the power under
\nthis rule.  It is  significant that while s. 5 speaks of the
\noccurrence of a ‘public emergency’, satisfaction with regard
\nto  the\t existence  of\twhich  is  to  be  recorded  by\t the
\nappropriate authority  mentioned in  that section,  Rule 422
\npurports to  empower the  Divisional Engineer to take action
\nthereunder in the event of “any emergency”. The scope of the
\nwords “any  emergency” in  Rule 422 is apparently wider than
\nthe expression\t“public emergency”  used in s. 5. It follows
\nthat the  satisfaction is  regard to  the existence  of “any
\nemergency” under  Rule\t422  is\t to  be\t of  the  Divisional
\nEngineer. He  has to  arrive at such satisfaction rationally
\non relevant  material which  may include  any certificate or
\nreport of the appropriate Government as to the occurrence of
\na ‘public  emergency’. The  requirement\t of  recording\tsuch
\nsatisfaction  by   the\tDivisional  Engineer,  with  reasons
\ntherefor, is  implicit in  the Rule.  That will be a minimal
\nsafeguard against  arbitrary exercise of this drastic power.
\nIn this\t connection, it\t will not be out of place to mention
\nhere,  that   sub-section  (2)\t of  s.\t 5  which  made\t the
\nCertificate of the Central\/State Government conclusive proof
\nas to  the existence  of a ‘public emergency’, stood deleted
\nand replaced  by a different provision, at the time when the
\nimpugned  action   was\ttaken  in  this\t case.\tThat  is  an
\nadditional reason  for holding\tthat it\t was the  Divisional
\nEngineer who had to form his own opinion as to the existence
\nof an emergency, before taking action under r. 422.\n<\/p>\n
     Having heard  the Counsel\ton both\t sides,\t we  are  of
\nopinion, that  the impugned  Order suffers at least from one
\napparent defect of jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
     Assuming that the General Manager was competent to make
\nan order under Rule 422, the power has been exercised mainly
\non a ground which is not a relevant consideration under this
\nRule. This  ground as  recited in  the Delhi  Administration
\nNotification of\t December 4,  1972  and\t reproduced  in\t the
\nimpugned order\tof the\tGeneral Manager, Telephones, is that
\nillegal forward\t trading (satta) in agricultural commodities
\nis being  practised in\ta large scale through the telephones
\nin question  at the premises of Coronation Hotel, Fatehpuri.
\nIn other  words, the  impugned action has been taken chiefly
\non the\tground that the appellants have been making improper
\nor illegal use of these telephones. This being the position,
\nthe appropriate\t course to be followed was that laid down in
\nRule 427 read with Rules 416 and 421. But this was not done.\n<\/p>\n
     It is well settled that where a power is required to be
\nexercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should
\nbe exercised  in that  manner or  not at  all, and all other
\nmodes of  performances are  necessarily forbidden. It is all
\nthe more necessary to observe this rule
\n1067<\/span>
\nwhere power  is of  a drastic  nature and  its exercise in a
\nmode other  than the  one provided, will be violative of the
\nfundamental principles\tof  natural  justice.  Now,  in\t the
\npresent case, if the telephones of the appellants were to be
\ndisconnected on the ground of misuse, then they had to give,
\nin  consonance\twith  the  principles  of  natural  justice,
\nopportunity to\tthe  appellants\t to  explain  their  conduct
\nbefore taking  action under Rule 427 read with Rules 416 and\n<\/p>\n
421. Resort to the wrong and more drastic course provided in
\nRule 422,  on a\t ground which  was not\tgermane to an action
\nunder that  Rule, vitiates  the impugned order, particularly
\nwhen it\t is manifest  that in making the impugned order, the
\nGeneral Manager was influenced more by this ground and less,
\nif at  all, by the existence of ‘public emergency’ certified
\nby the Delhi Administration.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  foregoing reasons\t we  accept  these  appeals,
\nallow the  writ petitions,  quash the  impugned\t orders\t and
\ndirect the  respondents to restore the telephone connections
\nto each of these appellants. However in the circumstances of
\nthe cases we make no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeals allowed.\n1<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 December, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 789, 1976 SCR (2)1060 Author: R S Sarkaria Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh PETITIONER: HUKAM CHAND SHYAM LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT17\/12\/1975 BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH BENCH: SARKARIA, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49918","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHukam Chand Shyam Lal vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1975-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-26T11:38:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 December, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-26T11:38:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975\"},\"wordCount\":2598,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975\",\"name\":\"Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-26T11:38:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 December, 1975\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-26T11:38:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 December, 1975","datePublished":"1975-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-26T11:38:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975"},"wordCount":2598,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975","name":"Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-26T11:38:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hukam-chand-shyam-lal-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-17-december-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 December, 1975"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49918","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49918"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49918\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49918"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49918"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49918"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}