IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 OP.No. 32252 of 2002(M) ----------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- 1. E.K.BHASKARAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, ELAVANTHARA HOUSE, KAKKASSERY, THRISSUR. 2. K.V.MARIYAMMA, DENTA HOUSE, POOVATHUR, THRISSUR. 3. N.A.M. SALIM, NALAKATH HOUSE, POOVATHUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR. P.K.ASHOKAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., TELECOM DISTRICT, THRISSUR. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., KERALA TELCOM CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NEW DELHI. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. R1 TO R3 BY MR. K.BALACHANDRAN, SC, BSNL R4 BY MR. M.V.RAMACHANDRAN THAMPI, ADDL.CGSC THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 32252 of 2002(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2001 AND 31.05.2001 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2001 AND 31.05.2001 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL FOR THE PERIOD 07.04.2002 AND 03.05.2002 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE RECEIVED THE REVISED BILL FOR THE PERIOD OF 01.06.2002 TO 31.07.2002 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE RECEIVED THE REVISED BILL FOR THE PERIOD OF 01.08.2002 TO 30.09.2002 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS AND ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE – R1(a): COPY OF THE TARIFF CIRCULAR ISSUED BY BSNL AS PER LETTER NO.5-10/2001 R&C DATED 19.04.2002. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE kkms/ S. SIRI JAGAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = O.P. No. 32252 OF 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of November 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioners are telephone subscribers. They are aggrieved by the classification of certain wards of the Elavalli Panchayat, to which they belong as an urban area for the purpose of telephone tariff. According to the petitioners, the classification of certain wards only of a particular panchayat as urban area is discriminatory and violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners. This exact question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Mavoor Peruvayal Perumanna Grama Vikasana Forum Vs. Union of India (2003(3) KLT 353) and decided against the position canvassed by the petitioners. In the above circumstances, following that decision, this original petition is dismissed. (S. SIRI JAGAN) JUDGE kkms/