HUKAM CHAND SHYAM LAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 1060 · Decided: 17-12-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
1060 
HUKAM CHAND SHYAM LAL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
December 17, 1975 
[A. N. RAY, c. J., M. H. BEG, R. S. SARKARIA, AND 
P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
J1idias Telegrc.phs Act, 1895-S. 5(1)-Read with Rule 422 of the ll!dian 
Telegraphs Rules, 1951-Whether statutory notice is 
111a11datory-"Econo1i1ic 
Enzerl..{ency'' does not a111ou11t to ''public emergency" within the meaning of s. 5-
Scope oj the words "A 11y emergency" i11 Rule 422 vis-a-vis the words "public 
emergency" in s. 5-Exercise of power of a drastio 11ature in a mode. other than 
the one proFided, is violative of the fundamelllal principles of natural justice. 
The appellants' telephones were disconnected and taken temporary posses-
sion of by the Superintendent of Police, North District and the General Manager, 
Telephones respectively on various dates acting under the instructions of the 
Administrator, Delhi, who was personally satisfied that illegal forward trading 
(satta) in agricultural commodities was being practised on a large scale by 
them through their telephones. 
The Orders were 
purportedly made 
under 
s. 5(1) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1895, and Rule 422 of the Indian Tele-
D 
graphs Rules, 1951. 
These orders were assailed by the appellants by a writ 
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution which was allowed by a single Judge 
of the High Court, resulting in a special appeal by the Union of India, which 
was accepted. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Negativing the contention Qf' the appellants/respondents viz.; that the impug•-
ed aciion of disconnection and temporary taking over of the telephones was 
bad because :-
(a) No statutory notice was ever given as required under Rules 421 and 
422. 
(b) The Divisional Engineer did not apply his mind and record his own 
satisfaction about the existence of "any emergency" and as such there was a 
contravention of Rules 421 and 422 which had to be read together. 
(c) The reason given in the order to the effect that the appellant, were 
making illegal and improper use of the telephones by transmitting messages and 
information in regard to Salta business which had been banned, was irrelevant 
and extraneous to Rule 422. 
(d) The emergency contemplated by Rule 422 is 1101 the same as "public 
emergency'' declared under s. 5, but "any emergency", the existence of which 
was to be established to the satisfaction of the Divisional Engineer and not any 
extraneous authority, the appellate Bench of the High Court held, (i) that, the 
requirement of notice could be dispensed with under Rule 422 by the General 
Manager Telephones, if he was satisfied that the telephones were being used 
by the subscribers for illegal forward trading (ii) that, such use was contrary 
to public interest in view of the existence of "economic" emergency (iii) that 
the words " any emergency" in Rule 422 includes an "economic emergency" 
and (iv) that, on the basis of the certificate in regard to the existence of an 
'economic emergency" the Divisional Manager was competent to pass the im-
pugned order in exercise of his powers under Rule 422. 
While allowing the appeals by special leave the Court, 
HELD: (1) S. 5(1) of the Indian Telegraphs Act. 1895, if properly cons-
trued, does not confer unguided and unbridled power on the Central Govern-
ment /State Government /Specially Authorised Officer to take possession of any 
telegraph. [l 065 CJ 
{ 
' 
\_ 
-
( 
HUKAM CHAND SHYAM LAL v. UNION (Sarkaria, J.) 
1061 
(2) Conditions pre-requisite for the exercise of power under this section 
and Rule 422 are : 
(a) the occurrence of a "public emergency'" not any other kind of emer-
gency. 
(b) recording of'. its satisfaction as to the existence of such ah emergency .by 
the Government or the Authority concerned on grounds germane to an action 
under the rule [1065 C-D] 
(3) The expression "public emergency" ha9 not been defined in the statute. 
Read as a whole, s. 5, with the two phrases in sub-section (i) viz. "oc.currence 
of any public emergency" and "or in the interest of public safety", clarifies that 
a "public emergency", within the contemplation of that section, is one which 
raises problems concerning the interest of public safety, the sovereignty and 
integrity of India, the security of the State, frienrlly relations with foreign States 
or public order, or the prevention of incitement to the commission of an offence. 
It is in the context of these matters that the appropriate authority has to form 
an opinion with regard to the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.