IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2179 of 2002 Between: DID EPABX Franchies Welfare Association Rep.by its Secretary. 43-15-5,Subbalakshmi Nagar Dondaparthy Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Rep.by its Managing Director Sanchar Bhavan Ashoka Road New Delhi. 2 The Chief General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited A.P.Circle Hyderabad. 3 The General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Visakhapatnam Dist. 4 The Director of Finance and Accounts Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Visakhapatnam Dist. 5 Union of India Rep.by its Secretary,Ministry of Communications Department of Telecom, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring as illegal and arbitrary the action of the Respondents in not implementing Revised Tariff for call charges as notified in the Telecommunicaitons Tariff (Tenth Amendment) order 2000 dated 09-11-2000 and issue a consequential directions to the Respondents to forthwith implement the said Revised Tariff charging the reduced rate of 90 paise flat instead or Rs.1.10ps with effect from 01-12-2000 to the member of the petitioner and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MISST.BALAJAYASREE SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.2179 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is an association of the agencies, which have established a system of communication known as DID EPABX (for short ‘the system’). They provided communication facilities through telephones. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited–first respondent provided telephone connection and they used to pay commission of 0-20 paise per call for first 10000 calls, 0-15 paise per call from 10000 to 20000 and 10 paise per call beyond 20000 calls. As on the date on which the members of the petitioner society entered into an agreement with the first respondent, the tariff per call used to be Rs.1.25 Paise. Later on it was reduced to Rs.1.10 paise and thereafter to 0- 90 paise for the first 500 calls. According to the present tariff, the first 500 calls would be charged at the rate of 0-90 paise per call and beyond that at Rs.1.10 paise. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 9.7.2001 stating inter alia that the change in tariff has seriously eroded into the amount of commission that is to be paid to the franchisees. Their grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. The respondents filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that though there was a downward revision of tariff, in actual figures, the franchisees stand to benefit. Heard Sri A.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss T. Balajayasree, learned standing counsel for the respondents. The terms and conditions that operate between the members of the petitioner on the one hand and B.S.N.L. on the other hand are governed by relevant provisions of the agreement. It is no doubt true that the commission was fixed for the franchisees at a time when there was uniform tariff irrespective of the number of the calls. According to the petitioner, the subsequent revision leads to loss of earnings of the franchisees, while the respondents contend that it works the other way. This court cannot act as an appellate authority over the matters of this nature particularly when the relations are purely contractual in nature. Further, various agencies are created for settlement thereof. The petitioner made an elaborate representation as to how its members are put to financial loss. The respondents are under the obligation to examine the same and communicate their viewpoint to the petitioner. There cannot be any justification for the respondents to keep the representation of the petitioner pending indefinitely. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner on 09-07-2001, within a period of two months from the date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 11.12.2008 Stp