ARVIND KUMAR Vs. M T N L

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his repeated entreaties the respondents failed to raise the bill for his telephone No. 742-0195. Petitioner was suddenly confronted, in June, 2000, with a bill for the sum of Rs. 69,064.00, which included late payment charge of Rs. 2,000.00. It is not disputed before me that the delay in billing had emanated out of the respondents' own failure to feed the necessary date in the computer. In fact, the notings on the file reveal that one of the causes for the delay was that one of the employees, who was dealing with the case, had been transferred. The situation for the petitioner further aggravated when, as per the petitioner, he met senior officials of the respondent, including the DGM (Finance), for grant of instalments. As per the petitioner, his requests were not heeded to. In these circumstances, Mr. B.D. Sharma, DGM (Finance), MTNL, was directed to be personally present.

(3.) Mr. B.D. Sharma is present in Court today. He has produced before the Court, petitioner's request for instalments, wherein he had directed grant of five instalments. As per the respondents, this decision was conveyed to the petitioner on telephone. This does not inspire confidence, inasmuch as, the petitioner is unlikely to have approached the Court with this writ petition, had this decision about grant of instalments been conveyed to him. Be that as it may, this controversy need not detain us any further.