RAJIV GOSAIN Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the disconnection of his telephone connection bearing No.6960893 and the instituted the present writ petition seeking its restoration. The respondent/MTNL proceeded to disconnect the above telephone connection on account of unpaid dues in respect of telephone connection bearing No.6868457 registered in the name of the petitioner's real sister. Two telephone connections are installed at E-31, Avi, Saket, New Delhi. The dues are amounting to nearly Rs.1,50,000.00,

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that there are no dues in respect of the petitioner/subscriber's telephone. He submits that the disconnection of his telephone on account of the unpaid arrears of telephone of his sister, who is an independent subscriber having a separate telephone connection bearing No.6868457, was unwarranted and contrary to Rule 2, PP, and 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules. Learned counsel also sought to urge that the petitioner's telephone bills are paid by his Company M/s. Intergest India International Limited, of which he is a Director and in fact it is a telephone for their benefit.

(3.) I am not persuaded by the submissions made. The admitted position is that the two telephone, connections No.6960893 in the name of the petitioner and connection No.6868457, in the name of petitioner's sister are installed in the same premises. It is also the admitted position that petitioner and his family and petitioner's sister and her family are residing together. There is no partition or division of the premises. Thus, there is commonality of usage of the telephones by the petitioner and his sister. Learned counsel also sought to place reliance on the decision in Y.Pridhvi Kumar v. The General Manager, Telecom District AIR 1993 Andhra Pradesh 131, Hyderabad. In the cited case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the mother and son were two independent subscribers and the telephone connection of one could not be disconnected for default of the others. He also placed reliance on Smt. Krishna Devi and another Vs. MTNL a Division Bench decision of this Court. In the first cited case there is nothing to indicate that the mother and son were living together or that there was common use of the telephone. As such the said judgment does not advance the petitioner's case. In Smt.Krishna and Other Vs. MTNL, the petitioners who were the subscribers of the telephone were not the partners of the firm M/s. Darbar India Limited, in respect of which there were arrears or default. It was simply a case where one of the two sons of the petitioner happened to be a partner of M/s. Darbar India Limited, who enjoyed the facility of use of the telephone. The Court held that such usage would not entitle the MTNL to disconnect the petitioner's telephone. Reference may usually be invited to decision of this Court in CW No.1220/88 and CW.5117/96, where the Court had occasion to deal with these aspects. In my view, once the Department is able to establish that there is commonality of user and there is nexus between the defaulting subscribers as well as the subscribers whose telephone is sought to be disconnected, the Department can resort to invocation of Rule 443 to protect its interests. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.