Before the appellate Bench it was contended that the impugned action was bad because: (a) no prior notice in regard to the same was given to the appellants; (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 impugned order, to the effect, that the appellants were making illegal and improper use of their telephones inasmuch as they were transmitting messages and information in regard to satta business which had been banned, was irrelevant and extraneous to Rule 422 under which the impugned action has been purportedly taken; (d) the emergency contemplated by Rule 422 is not the same as a 'public emergency ' declared under s.5, but is an emergency arising out of the breakdown of the telecommunications due to a technical defect, labour trouble, vis major, fire or the like, the existence of which was to be established to the satisfaction of the Divisional Engineer and not any extraneous authority.