HOTEL BHEEMA Vs. TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) has prayed for quashing the Order dated 20th february, 1992, the copy of which has been produced as annexure-h, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 12,114/- towards the arrears of telephone bill in respect of No. S.t.d. p.t. 27198 and also the demand note dated 21st february, 1992 issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount referred to in bill, annexure-h.

(2.) Sri M. Ram Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner is not a subscriber in respect of telephone No. S.t.d. p.t. 27198 and one Sri Aslam is admittedly the subscriber to the said telephone. Therefore, he submitted that it is not permissible for the respondents to call upon the petitioner to pay the amount referred to in bill/order annexures-g and h, and in the event of failing to pay the amount demanded in the said bill to disconnect the telephone of the petitioner. He submitted Rule 443 of the Indian telegraph rules, 1951 (hereinafter the 'rules') which provides for disconnection of telephone for the default of a subscriber to pay arrears of the telephone bill, does not empower the respondents to disconnect telephone of the petitioner for the liability or the arrears of amount due by the said aslam in respect 6f telephone bearing No. S.t.d. p.t. 27198. In support of his contentions, Sri M. Ram Bhat brought to my notice the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. B.V. Manek v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited , and also the decision of the gauhati High Court in the case of Santokh Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Shillong. However, Sri Ashok Harnahalli, Learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents submitted that the telephone bearing No. S.t.d. p.t. 27198 was connected to the p.b.x. telephone No. 28078 in respect of which the petitioner is a subscriber and therefore, it is a clear case of misuse of telephone No. S.t.d. p.t. 27198, and therefore the authorities were fully justified in calling upon the petitioner to make the payment as claimed in bill/demand note annexures-g and h and notifying the petitioner that in the event of failure to pay the amount demanded, the respondents would disconnect the telephone of the petitioner.

(3.) in view of the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the short question which would fall for my consideration is as to whether the respondents are entitled to call upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of amount due in respect of the telephone No. S.t.d. p.t. 27198 in respect of which admittedly one aslam is the subscriber; and in the event of refusing to make the said payment, whether the respondents are entitled to disconnect the telephone of the petitioner.