RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had applied for telephone line at Loni Road, Shahadara. On such application being made, telephone line was provided in the name of the petitioner on 14.1.1970. According to the petitioner all bills upto 1.6.1989 had been duly paid by the petitioner to the respondent. The telephone line was stated to have remained out of order since April, 1988 and after waiting for a considerable time a written complaint was made on 15.9.1988 and ultimately it was stated to have been disconnected on December 5, 1989. Vide a letter dated 26.11.1990, the respondents demanded a sum of Rs.62,212/- as arrears from the petitioner claiming rental at the rate of Rs.2,700/- per year. The rental @ Rs.2700/- per year was claimed w.e.f. the date of installation of the telephone line on 14.1.1970 on the ground that the telephone line was working at a distance of about 3 Kms from Delhi border and the petitioner was required to pay Rs,900/- per Km every year over and above the rental charges in terms of the Circular having been issued by the Department of Telecommunication. The petitioner refused to pay the aforesaid amount. For non-payment of this demand, the respondents threatened to disconnect the other telephone lines of the petitioner working at Meerut. On the said threat being given, the petitioner filed the present petition for quashing the demand dated 26.11.1990, 16.6.1992 and July, 1992 and to restore the telephone line of the petitioner bearing No.2280666 without any delay.

(2.) In the counter affidavit, the stand taken by the respondents is that the telephone line installed in the name of the petitioner was working beyond 3 Kms from Shahadara Exchange and in terms of the Department of Telecommunication's circular the subscriber was required to pay extra rental order and above the normal rental for such telephone line. It is submitted that the respondents had issued a supplementary bill for Rs.56,625/- towards extra rental charges beyond the local area on standard rent basis as the capital expenditure incurred was reported not to have been available with the Exchange charges but on examination of the matter, it was found that the calculation of standard rent was erroneous and the case of the petitioner was thereafter reviewed after reducing the bill, the demand for Rs.19,115/- as against the earlier demand of Rs.56,625/- was raised against the petitioner. It is submitted that since the telephone line was installed at the distance of more than 3 Kms from the Exchange, from where the line was provided, the respondents were entitled to claim extra rental from the petitioner. Besides the aforesaid amount of Rs.19,115/-, the respondents have also claimed a sum of Rs.1325/- as the cost of instrument and directory and another sum of Rs.486/- towards rent for the period 1.8.1989 to 5.12.1989 when the telephone line was disconnected. To claim extra rental, the respondents have relied upon Rule 434 of the Indian Telegraph Rules and para 81 of the Post and Telegraph Manual Vol. XII.

(3.) Under Rule 434 of the Indian Telegraph Rules for telephone connections not exceeding 5 Kms. of actual length beyond the local area, the rental shall be levied as for connection within the local area plus Rs.600/- per annum or Rs.100/- for every two months for each additional Kilometer thereof of the actual rental of the connection beyond the local area. Local area has been defined in Rule 2(w) of the Rules to mean the area within 5 Kms distance from the telephone Exchange. A reading of Rule 434 with Rule 2(w) shows that if the telephone line is installed within 5 Kms of the Exchange the respondents are not liable to charge any extra rental and it is only in case the telephone line is provided beyond 5 Kms of the exchange that the respondents may be entitled to claim extra rental. In the present case, as per the respondents own admission the telephone line has been provided at a distance of about 3 Kms. Nowhere in the counter affidavit or in any other document it is stated that the telephone line is beyond the distance of 5 Kms from the telephone Exchange. Since as per the respondents own showing the telephone line has been provided within 5 Kms from the Telephone Exchange the same would come within the meaning of the local area and the respondents would not be entitled to claim any extra rental. Moreover, it is surprising that the respondents kept quiet for a period of 20 years to claim this extra rental and claim the same only after the telephone line provided in the name of the petitioner was disconnected. For all these reasons, in my view, the respondents are not entitled to claim any extra rental for the period 14.1.1970 till the date mentioned in the bill.