KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. DELHI MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is against the impugned notice dated 10.11,88 calling upon the petitioners to arrange to settle the outstanding dues in respect of telephone No. 7113634 provided to M/s, Darbar India at their business premises at Shalimar Industrial Area, Delhi failing which telephone Nos. 641-8487 and 634438 in the names of petitioners 1 and 2 respectively shall be disconnected. M/s Darbar India, is a partnership firm of which one of the two sons of petitioner no. 1 is a partner. The case of the petitioners is that they have nothing to do with telephone no. 7113634. The same has been subscribed by said M/s. Darbar India and if that firm has fallen in arrears of dues in respect of the said telephone it is the liability of the partners of that firm alone and so far as the two telephones of the petitioners are concerned, they are not liable to be disconnected on the failure of the partners of the said firm in the payment of the dues which may be recoverable from the subscriber of that telephone.

(2.) The case of the respondents is that petitioner no. 1 is the mother of Shri Vijay Chopra, one of the partners of the firm and Shri R.C. Chopra, petitioner no. 2 is his uncle. Their further case is that Sh. Vijay Chopra, one of the partners of Darbar India is using the two telephones subscribed in the name of the two petitioners and the petitioners having extended this facility to the said partner of the firm Darbar India, are also liable to meet the obligations of the said firm in the matter of clearing the arrears of the telephone dues of the said firm and in the event of their not clearing the said arrears their telephones are also liable to be disconnected. Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules reads:

(3.) It is obvious that as per this rule in the event of a subscriber having defaulted in payment of the rent or the charges in respect of the telephone as subscribed by him, is liable to be disconnected without any notice being served on him. The question involves the interpretation of the words "telephone subscriber" as stated in the rule 443. A subscriber is a person who has subscribed for a particular telephone connection whether it be an individual, a partnership firm or a corporate body. In the present case the telephone, the dues in respect of which have fallen due is No. 7113634 which was admittedly subscribed by the firm Darbar India. Neither of the petitioners, can by any stretch of imagination be described to be the subscriber of the telephone no. 7113634, and the telephone No. 7113634 which alone can be disconnected in the event of its subscriber not having paid the dues of the department. The submission that Vijay Chopra one of the partners of M/s. Darbar India, is using the telephones, as got installed by the two petitioners and they are extending the facility of using or allowing the user of their telephones to Vijay Chopra, a partner of the said firm and therefore for that reason they should be deemed to be under an obligation to clear the arrears of the telephone as got installed by the firm M/s. Darbar India, is wholly devoid of any force. We fail to see as to how by the mere fact of the petitioner's having allowed or extended the facility of the use of their telephones to one of the partners of the said firm they become liable to clear the arrears of the telephone that may have been got installed by the partnership firm of which that individual may be a partner. Obviously no such vicarious liability can be fastened on the petitioners. The counsel for the respondent, has referred to a decision in W.P. No. 5963/87 S. Thangam vs. Area Manager Madras dated 4.8.1987. In that case, the partnership firm had fallen in arrears of telephone dues to the extent of Rs. 1,60,000.00. Some minors were admitted to the benefit of the partnership firm, and their mother was representing the interests of the minors in the firm. Under these circumstances it was held that the failure of the partnership firm in having cleared the arrears and the dues of the telephone department, the telephone connection of the latter was held liable to be disconnected. It is obvious that there is no analogy of the facts of the present case with the facts of that case.