RAJIV AGARWAL Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to respondent No. 1/MTNL and respondent No. 2 to take necessary steps for restoration of telephone connection at the chamber of the petitioner situated in Block-II, Lawyers Chambers, Delhi High Court.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 25.3.2011 a fire had broken out on the 4th Floor of Block-II, Lawyers Chambers due to which some of the chambers got damaged. As a result of the fire, the electricity and telephone connections in those chambers got disconnected. Apart from the petitioner, 18 other allottees of chambers were also adversely affected. He states that despite repeated requests and reminders by the petitioner to respondent No. 1, till the date of filing of the writ petition, no steps were taken by respondent No. 1 to restore his telephone connection. Further, to add insult to injury, respondent No. 1 has been raising bills in respect of the disconnected telephone, which the petitioner has been regularly paying. As the last resort, the present petition has been filed for redressal of the petitioner's grievance.

(3.) On the last date of hearing, i. e. , on 14.7.2011, notice was issued on the petition and Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 had sought time to file affidavits within one week. Affidavits have not been filed by either of the respondents. However, Counsel for respondent No. 1 states that he had contacted his clients immediately after the hearing of the case on the last date and as a temporary measure, the telephone connections of the petitioner and the other 18 adversely affected customers in the chamber block were restored on the very same day. He states that for respondent No. 1 to restore the telephone connection, respondent No. 2/PWD was required to replace the burnt distribution cable which was not done. He submits that though no written communication was addressed by the officers of respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 for restoration of the burnt distribution cable, oral/telephonic requests were made to the officers of respondent No. 2, which did not elicit any response.