ABRAHAM Vs. DIRECTOR OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the petitioner in O. P. 9243 of 1982 for taking action for contempt against respondents 1 to 3, they being the director of Telecommunications, Trivandrum , the divisional Engineer, Telephones, Trivandrum, and the Junior Engineer, Telephones, Kozhancherry. The basis for making this application is that the order of this court in C. M. P. 2165 of 1985 in O. P. 9243 of 1982 directing reconnection of the telephone (33 of the Kozhancherry exchange) forthwith was not respected by the respondents. After going through the averments in the petition we did not find a case made out against respondents 1 and 2 and therefore we confined notice to the 3rd respondent in the petition.

(2.) HE has appeared before us today. The order of this court in C. M. P. 2165 of 1983 was passed on 28-1-1983. The petition for stay had been posted on several dates earlier and when it was finally heard on 15-12-1982 it is said to have been represented by Central Government counsel that the Original Petition itself could be heard on 23-12-1982. Accordingly it was directed to be posted for final hearing on 23-12-1982. But on that day the case could not be heard and under the circumstances the petitioner moved C. M. P. 2165 of 1983 seeking a direction restoring the telephone 33 Kozhancherry exchange. It was so moved with notice to the Central Government Counsel and the order Ext. P1 was passed on 28-1-1983 after such notice. On the request of the petitioner's counsel the order was banded over on the same day and according to the petitioner his counsel informed him on 1-2-1983 telegraphically that reconnection of the telephone was ordered by the court. On receipt of the telegram the petitioner is said to have made representation to the 3rd respondent but the latter declined to act on it on the ground that he had not received any order from court. Thereupon the petitioner came to Ernakulam and obtained the order. HE handed over the order to the 3rd respondent on 3-2-1983 and according to the petitioner the 3rd respondent said that he was not bound by the orders of the High Court but only by orders of his official superiors. The photostat copies of the order are said to have been taken by the petitioner and these are said to have been posted to respondents 1 and 2 on 4-1-1983. There are averments made in the petition to show that the 3rd respondent's conduct was not inadvertent but was because the petitioner refused to oblige him by issuing a free pass for travelling in his bus as desired. This is an averment which is denied. It is also denied that the order was handed over on 3-2-1983. According to 3rd respondent this was only on 4-2-1983. For the purpose of this petition we do not want to go into the truth or otherwise of the background stated for intentionally putting off implementing the order of this court. Assuming that there was no such background and also that the order was received only on 4-2-1983 we have to consider why till 13-2-1983 reconnection was not given when the order of this court directed that reconnection should be given forthwith. In fact the first duty he had, once he received the order, was to effect reconnection and that should be as far as possible on the same day giving priority over any other work he had. The order of 28-1-1983 was passed in the presence of a Central Government Counsel and therefore the respondent must be taken to have notice even on that day, but we assume that he did not get actual notice till the 4th. We must remember that on 10-2-1983 the petitioner had moved a petition for contempt in which allegations were made against the 3rd respondent as to why he did not act in accordance with the order of this court. It was only after receipt of notice by the central Government Counsel and possibly after the 3rd respondent came to know of this petition that reconnection was given on 13-2-1983. We must also remember that there was a telephone connection to the petitioner's house and that therefore there was no question of drawing any new line. There was only the question of taking the apparatus over to that house and fixing it up. That could certainly be done with expedition if only the 3rd respondent was inclined to do so. It is significant that despite the very detailed averments in the petition and particularly the reason why the 3rd respondent had acted in this manner, in the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent we see very little by way of answer for the delay in effecting reconnection. After referring to the fact that the order was received by him on the morning of 4-2-1983 he goes on to say that he gave reconnection on 13-2-1983 after checking up the lines and repairing the instruments. According to him the petitioner was not present at his residence on 12-2-1983 and the wife of the petitioner did not permit him to give reconnection on 12-2-1983. The time lag between 4-2-1983 to 12-2-1983 is not even attempted to be explained and there is no answer for the inaction. In these circumstances we have no hesitation to say that the 3rd respondent is guilty of contempt in disobeying the order of this court in letter and in spirit.

(3.) TO a user of a telephone disconnection is a matter of serious consequence. This court in passing the interim order for immediate reconnection has taken due note of the circumstance. The conduct by the Junior engineer in flouting the order would be very well known to the people of the locality. If at all 3rd respondent wants to make amends it is not by offering a ritualistic apology in the affidavit filed in this court. We feel the apology must be made openly in a manner that reaches the local public of Kozhancherry. That may perhaps serve a larger purpose, as a deterrant to those who treat the orders of Court with callous disregard or indifference. The 3rd respondent has agreed to offer unconditional apology in public in the locality in which he is functioning, namely in the Kozhancherry Panchayat. We think that the appropriate course would be to welcome this. Sri Mathews P. Mathews, the president of the Advocates' Association who belongs to Kozhancherry has agreed to preside over the meeting which may be convened at Kozhancherry with the concurrence of the Panchayat President, Kozhancherry. The High Court will address him and we hope he would cooperate. If at the meeting so arranged the 3rd respondent apologises for his conduct we shall consider the question of acceptance of such apology as sufficient to save 3rd respondent from the consequence of his offending conduct. The meeting need not be one where there are speeches but only convened to enable expression of regret by the 3rd respondent publicly. Sri. Mathews P. Mathews will intimate the 3rd respondent as to the date of the meeting. We place on record our appreciation of the attitude of the President of the Advocates' Association in undertaking a very unpleasant task of presiding over a meeting of this nature. We expect him to report about the meeting. Post the case after two weeks for further orders. Furnish a copy of this order to Sri. Mathews P. Mathews immediately. A copy of this order will be sent to the Panchayat President, kozhancherry Panchayat immediately with a request to convene a meeting. . .