IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19359 of 2003 Between: M/s. AGA Publications Limited, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, K.R.K. Prasad, Having Office at 396, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad - 500 080. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Bharat Sanchar Nigam, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Statesman House, New Delhi. 2 The Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, A.P. Circle, 1st Floor, Door Sanchar Nigam, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad - 500 001. 3 The Chairman, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, 20th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhaan, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in classifying the chargeable rate for "local lead" and "chargeable lead" and further introducing the long distance chargeable centre concept as arbitrary, in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under articles 14,19 and having the effect of violating Article 300 A of the Constitution of India apart from being in violation of Articles 39 and 41 of Constitution of India and issue consequential direction to the Respondents not to levy fee on the said basis but on the actual distance for channel rates and local leads Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.RAVICHANDER Counsel for the Respondents: Dr.Bhaskara Mohan MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : Order: On 15-06-2009, when the writ petition was listed for hearing, as there was no representation for the petitioner, it was directed to be posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’ on 16-06-2009. On 16-06-2009, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition was adjourned to 24-06-2009. When the writ petition was called on 24-06-2009, again, a request was made for adjournment. Hence, the writ petition was adjourned and posted today. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel, representing the learned counsel on record, merely submits that the petitioner has filed this writ petition to declare the action of the respondents in introducing long distance chargeable center concept as illegal and arbitrary. However, no arguments are advanced so as to demonstrate that the said concept is illegal and arbitrary, warranting interference of this court, in exercise of powers, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned concept. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. June 29, 2009 Skmr/MRR