Delhi High Court
Jankalyan Telecom Coop. Store vs M.T.Nl. & Ors. on 5 April, 2013
Author: Reva Khetrapal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8169/2005
JANKALYAN TELECOM COOP. STORE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Atul Bandhu, Advocate with
Mr. Varun Kumar, Advocate
versus
M.T.NL. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.V.K. Rao, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. R.S. Rana, Adv. for R-3.
% Date of Decision : April 05, 2013
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
ORDER
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. After hearing the matter upon remand and carefully
scrutinizing the records, it appears that a misrepresentation was made
before the learned Division Bench that on an application filed, BSNL
was impleaded as Respondent in the Writ Petition. The record shows
that though an application was filed by the Petitioner for impleadment
of BSNL as party - Respondent and reply to the said application was
also filed by the BSNL stating therein that the Respondent - MTNL
has no concern with the property in question, the said application is
yet to be disposed of.
2. Learned Division Bench in paragraph 15 of the remand order
has directed this Court to decide whether the subject property belongs
to MTNL or BSNL for the reason that if the property does not belong
to MTNL, "it (BSNL) would be nobody to evict the Store", that is, the
Petitioner herein.
3. It is, thus, deemed expedient to first decide the application
under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the
Petitioner for impleadment of BSNL as Respondent No.3 by passing
formal orders on the said application.
CM No.15628/2008
1. In the aforesaid application, the Petitioner has averred that
during the pendency of the instant Petition, the property of
Respondent/MTNL was transferred to the proposed
Respondent - BSNL, which has in effect taken over the
property of MTNL. Further, the BSNL issued a letter to the
Petitioner/Lessee, informing the Petitioner that Garage No.24
now belongs to the jurisdiction of BSNL. The Petitioner was
further informed by the said letter that the rent of the
occupation is ` 143/- only, and directed to deposit the said
licence fee with the Accounts Officer (Cash) of BSNL. In
pursuance of the directions aforesaid, the Petitioner has
deposited the fees with the proposed Respondent - BSNL with
effect from 22.09.2007, the receipts whereof have been placed
on record.
2. The further submission of the Petitioner is that the BSNL has
admitted the Petitioner as its lawful tenant/occupant and since
MTNL has no jurisdiction over the property in question, the
Petitioner cannot be evicted therefrom. The Petitioner also
submits that in view of MTNL's denial that the property in
question does not belong to BSNL, the Petitioner again wrote a
letter, dated 31.10.08, to the BSNL to which reply was sent by
the BSNL on 11.11.2008 stating that "property belongs to
BSNL as per the directions of MOC vide letter No.400-88/85-
STC-III (at) dated 21.3.1986". Copies of aforesaid letters have
been placed on record.
3. Notice of the aforesaid application was issued to the BSNL.
The BSNL has filed reply stating that it has no objection to its
impleadment as it is a necessary party, since the property in
question belongs to BSNL with reference to Ministry of
Communication letter No. 400-88/85-STG-III dated
21.03.1986. The rent of the said premises is already being paid
to the BSNL, and hence, MTNL has no concern with the
property in question.
4. No reply has been filed by the MTNL despite grant of time to
do so. It may, however, be mentioned that in the course of
hearing learned counsel for the MTNL relied upon a
communication dated 14th January, 2011, which he states
though was received by the BSNL prior to the remand order
dated 21.12.2011 passed in the instant case, was not brought to
the notice of the learned Division Bench. The said
communication reads as follows:-
"No.42010-Estt
Government of India
Ministry of Communication & IT
Department of Telecommunication
(SR DIVISION)
New Delhi-1, Dated the 14 Jan. 2011
To
The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Building Section, Eastern Court, Janpath
New Delhi - 110001
Sub: On the matter of Jan Kalyan Telecom Cooperative
Store Vs. MTNL before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi - reg
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter No. 6-13/2009-10/KW
dated 28.12.2010 on the above subject and to say that in terms of
order No. 400-88/85-STG.III dated 21.3.1986 the area of occupation
under MTNL and BSNL respectively shall continue to be so occupied
for the time being and MTNL may defend the case against Jan Kalyan
Store.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Dr. Vincent Barla)
Director (Staff Relations)"
5. Since, BSNL has not yet been impleaded as a Party, the
response of the BSNL on the aforesaid communication could
not be ascertained. In any event, in my view, this letter does
not obviate the necessity of impleading BSNL as a party, which
is necessary for the purpose of determining the ownership
rights of the MTNL/BSNL.
6. For all the aforesaid reasons, the prayer in the present
application for impleadment of BSNL as a necessary party is
allowed. Amended Memo of Parties is taken on the record.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
List the Writ Petition for further directions on 13th May, 2013.
REVA KHETRAPAL
(JUDGE)
April 05, 2013
sk
