SURJIT SINGH Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of the parties matter has been heard and is being disposed of finally.

(2.) Petitioner is the subscriber of a telephone line bearing No. 3265301 installed at his business premises at 1195, Charhahat Building, Jama Masjid, Delhi. Petitioner also had another telephone line bearing No. 5121187 installed at his residence at Rajouri Garden. Still another telephone line bearing No. 5416493 was provided in the name of the petitioner's wife at his residence. For non-payment of the dues in respect of the telephone lines installed at his residence, in his name and in the name of his wife, both the telephone lines were disconnected. It appears that there were certain arrears in respect of telephone line No. 3265301 installed at the business premises of the petitioner. For non-payment of the dues in respect of this telephone line, the telephone at the business premises of the petitioner was also disconnected. Petitioner applied for restoration of the telephone line at his business premises and offered to pay the amount due from him to the Department in respect of the telephone lines installed in his name at his residence as well as in his business premises. It appears that the respondent did not agree to restore the telephone line at the business premises of the petitioner without payment the amount of more than Rs. 1,50,000.00 due from the subscriber of the telephone line bearing No. 5416493 in the name of his wife. Present petition was, therefore, filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent to restore the telephone line bearing No. 3265301, The petitioner during the course of the hearing has offered to pay the amount which is stated to be due not only in respect of telephone line in question bearing No. 3265301, but also in respect of telephone line bearing No. 5121187 installed in his name at his residence, but he has refused to pay the amount due in respect of the telephone line bearing No. 5416493 in the name of his wife.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that since under Rule 443 of the Indian Telephone Rules, it is only for non-payment of an amount by the subscriber in respect of the telephone in question or any other telephone line in the name of the - subscriber that the telephone could be disconnected, the respondents did not have any right to call upon the petitioner to pay the amount due in respect of telephone provided in the name of his wife. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be penalised for non-payment of the amount by his wife in respect of telephone provided in her name and that is also not the intention of Rule 443 of the Indian Telephone Rules. Petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported as Senior Superintendent, R.M.S., Cochin &Anr. v. K.V. Gopinath, Sorter, AIR 1972 SC 1487; Babu Verghese & Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala & Ors., II (1999) SLT 605==(1999) 3 SCC 422; Tolaram Relumal 6-Anr. v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 496, to contend that if an act has to be done in a particular manner prescribed under any Statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. It is, therefore, his contention that since Rule 443 does not provide for disconnection of the telephone line of the subscriber for non-payment of the amount due from his wife in respect of the telephone provided in her name, the respondent cannot insist upon the payment of the dues in respect of the telephone lines which are in the name of the relations of the subscriber.