(1.) The Challenge in this writ petition is to a bill of Rs. 2,50,000.00 issued by Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. on account of telephone charges in respect of the period 31st May, 1988 to 31st March, 1989. There is also a challenge to the validity of Rule 443 of the Rules framed under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
(2.) The petitioner was allotted a temporary connection in July, 1986 of a Telphone bearing No. 604420. Between 1986 and 1988 the bills which were sent were paid but the petitioner, in June 1988, made a representation to the respondents against excessive bill. For the period from 1.4.1988 to 15th May, 1988 a bill for Rs. 28.166.00 had been received by the petitioner and in the representation dated 17th June, 1988 it was contended by the petitioner that the said bill was excessive and unreasonable. Payment was, however, made of the bill under protest. The petitioner thereafter also sought for and obtained meter readings. Ultimately, the petitioner received a bill, in June, 1990 for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000.00 . It was stated in this bill that the said amount was for calls which had been "less charged during the period from 31.5.88 to 31.3.89". It was further stated that what was charged, originally, from the petitioner was in respect of 48385 calls instead of 2,48,385.00 calls. This bill for Rs. 2,50,000.00 was in respect of 2,00,000 calls which had been under-charged. Though in the bill it was stated that the payment should be made by 28th May, 1990 in order to avoid disconnection, the bill was, however, sent to the petitioner only on 5th June, 1990.
(3.) The petitioner represented against the said bill but, according to him, he did not receive any reply. The petitioner also requested that his STD be disconnected. It is there after that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of the said bill as well as rule 443, under which rule power is alleged to have been given to the respondent to disconnect the telephone in the event of non-payment of any bill.