AJITH SINGH Vs. GENERAL MANAGER MYSORE TELECOME DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioners are the sons of one Bindar Singh who was a subscriber to the telephone No. 497877. The said telephone was disconnected from service on 16-2-1999 for non-payment of telephone charges. The respondents have issued notice to the petitioners dated 12-1-2001-annexure A demanding payment of a sum of Rs. 31,467/- due by Bindar Singh in respect of the disconnected telephone No. 497877 failing which they have threatened to take action. This notice is questioned in these petitions mainly on the ground that having regard to Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, no such power is available to the respondents.

(2.) THE defence of the Department before this Court is, though petitioners were not the subscribers of the disconnected telephone, since they happen to be the sons of the subscriber - Bindar Singh and are also residing in the same house, they should be made liable to pay.

(3.) SRI Aravind Kumar, learned Standingcounsel for the respondents contended that, having regard to the close relationship of the defaulting subscriber with the petitioners, petitioners also should be held as subscribers of the disconnected telephone. He relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in rajiv Gosain v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam ltd. AIR 2000 Delhi 431 wherein the Delhi high Court has held that if close relative like the sister and brother are residing in the same premises and if there is a community of usage of two different telephones, then for the default of one subscriber the Department is authorised to disconnect the telephone of the other subscriber.