MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED Vs. DIWAKAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit though instituted by the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited for recovery of arrears of telephone bills shows how a defaulter can escape from the action of dis-connection of the telephone by not making the payment-of the bills running into lacs of rupees for years together either with active connivance or criminal remissness or delinquence of the concerned officials and highly indifferent or cavalier attitude of the higher authorities in monitoring or regulating the revenue recovery. This is so because of the monolithic system that lacks in fixing individual liability or accountability. They disregard their obligations sometimes with impunity knowing it well that at the end of the day they would be let off by shifting the load of blame to one and another. Experience shows that subscribers whose outstanding bill either runs in hundreds or in thousands are ordinarily faced with immediate disconnection if the same is not paid by the due date. So much so even if the bill of the forgotten past even of paltry amount is found outstanding bells start ringing day in an day out to remind and threaten him with dis-connection. Instant case appears to be a tip of the iceberg Many more skeletons in various forms may still be found in the cupboard.

(2.) For inaction or callous remissness on the part of the plaintiff, the public exchequer is not only being siphoned off in the form of non-recovery of the telephone bills running into crores of rupees and interest thereon but also through the court fees affixed from the public exchequer to recover the said amount. This is most reprehensible and should be an eye-opener for the authorities to be vigilant and to punish the delinquents and if need be saddle them with personal liability. Facts are startling and disturbing and warrant severest action against every concerned official or officer.

(3.) The defendant had applied for telephone connection at C-74, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi on 17/05/1993. Pursuant to the said application telephone was sanctioned and telephone No. 6854595 was allotted to the defendant by way of installation of the telephone at his residence.