MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. ABDUL BARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendants in a suit for mandatory injunction filed by the respondent no. 1 herein which was decreed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 16/09/1996.

(2.) THE relevant facts for the purpose of present appeal may first be noticed. The respondent no. 1, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the plaintiff', was the subscriber of two telephone connections provided by Mahanagar Telephone nigam Ltd. (MTNL), the appellant no. 1 herein, which shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'defendant'. One of the two telephones with no. 2937162 was installed at the place of business of the plaintiff which was premises no. 511/1/3, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, Khari Baoli, Delhi and the other connection with telephone no. 6469158 was installed at his residence in Greater kailash, New Delhi. The plaintiff's telephone at Khari Baoli was disconnected on 08/01/96 for non-payment of charges with respect to the connection installed at his residence at Greater Kailash. The plaintiff asked the defendants to restore the telephone connection at his place of business but that was not done and then he filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the MTNL for directing it to restore the telephone connection at the Khari Baoli premises on the ground that the connection could not be disconnected because of non-payment of the charges of the connection at his residence. It was also claimed that there was in any case a dispute regarding the charges in respect of the connection at the residence of the plaintiff and that dispute had been referred for statutory arbitration. It was also claimed that no show-cause notice had been given to the plaintiff by the defendants before disconnecting telephone connection at his place of business nor any disconnection order served on him. Union of India, appellant no. 2 herein, was also impleaded in the suit as defendant no. 2.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendants and in their joint written statement many objections were raised but primarily the suit was resisted on the ground that their action in disconnecting the telephone connection at the plaintiff's business place due to non-payment of telephone charges in respect of the telephone connection at his residence was fully justified. Reliance was placed on Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 which according to the defendants empowered them to disconnect a telephone connection, and that too without any notice, in the name of a subscriber in case of non-payment of dues in respect of other connection which also the same subscriber may be having in his name. On merits, it was pleaded on behalf by the defendants that the telephone of the plaintiff installed at his business premises had been disconnected for non- payment of the telephone charges in respect of the other telephone connection which he had at his residence at Greater Kailash.