ANTHAPPAN Vs. DIST MANAGER TELEPHONES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TELEPHONE No. 34953 installed at House No. XXVIII/2142, Palarivattom, Cochin-25 was disconnected on 1-10-1977 and the petitioner who was the subscriber of that telephone was told by a letter dated 15/17-10-1977, copy Ext. P3, that the telephone had been closed for misuse on 1 - 10-1977. The petitioner thereupon made a representation to the District Manager, TELEPHONEs, seeking immediate action in the matter of verification of certain facts stated and re-connecting the telephone. After waiting for sometime to get orders thereon, he moved this Court for quashing Ext. P3 and also for a mandamus to direct the respondent, the District Manager, TELEPHONEs, to reconnect the telephone.

(2.) THE right of any subscriber to continue to enjoy the benefit of the telephone of which he is a subscriber, is quite valuable. Despite the fact that it is the exclusive privilege of the Central Government to establish, maintain and work telegraphs, there is no power in the authorities functioning under the Indian Telegraph Act to act arbitrarily either in the matter of sanctioning fresh telephone connections or in the matter of suspending or cancelling such connections. Any person aggrieved by the arbitrary conduct of the authorities functioning under the said Act should be able to seek redress against the violation of their rights. It has been pointed out by this Court in the decision in Ayyappan Pillai v. Divl. Engineer, Telephones 1974 KLT. 41 that there is nothing in the Telegraph Rules which enables the authorities to disconnect the telephone sanctioned for use of a person on the ground that he was neither residing nor having a place of a business in the premises where the telephone is installed. It was further held therein that in the absence of reasons recorded in writing showing the satisfaction of the concerned officer that it was necessary to disconnect the telephone, any such disconnection was liable to be impugned successfully. R.421 of the Indian Telegraph Rules deals with disconnection of telephones, R.427 deals with the consequence of illegal or improper use of telephone and R.429 deals with transfer of telephone. THEse are the Rules to which generally reference is made in the context of disconnection of telephones. THE scope of these rules came up for examination by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision in O. P. 3358 of 1976. In view of this, it may not be necessary to go into the questions covered by the said decision in detail.

(3.) EVIDENTLY the case against the petitioner for closure of the telephone was that he had allowed one Soman to use the telephone and that he had shifted from the premises where the telephone was installed. The procedure adopted was to give a show cause notice, then hold some investigation and disconnect the telephone. I am afraid the order cannot be sustained both because the procedure adopted was not in accordance with the rules and also because the disconnection was not justified on the facts.