V KUMARAN ERADY Vs. GENERAL MANAGER MADRAS TELEPHONES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the subscriber of telephone No. 613326 Madras prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P5, P7 series, P9, P11, P11(b) and P11(c) and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to reconnect the petitioner's telephone No. 613326 and for other incidental reliefs. The facts of the case are as follows :

(2.) The petitioner's telephone No. 613326 was installed at his residence 2A, Temple Rock, No. 44, New Avadi Road, Madras. Since he shifted his residence from Madras, he made Ext. P1 application to the second respondent for keeping the telephone under safe custody with effect from 30-11-1988. Ext. P1 was followed by Exts. P2 and P3 reminders addressed by the petitioner to the second respondent to confirm action has been taken pursuant to Ext. P1. Ext. P4 is yet another representation submitted by the petitioner to the second respondent requesting him to confirm that his telephone has been kept under long duration safe custody as desired in Ext.P1 letter. But, to the utter consternation of the petitioner, he received Ext. P5 communication from the first respondent informing him that "the telephone No. 613326 installed at the above address for your use is being unauthorisedly used by a third party viz. Shir Yusuf Ahamed and that you are not available at the said premises "and that he has contravened the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Rules under which the telephone was provided, making it liable for disconnection and recovery and further that "Telephone No. 613326 will be closed and recovered on expiry of Seven Days from the date of this letter under Indian Telegraph Rules420, for violation of I.T. Rules 429/433, without prejudice to your liability to pay all dues in respect of it." The petitioner was also informed that he may make any representation on the subject and the same will be considered provided it is received before the expiry of the stipulated period. On receipt of Ext. P5 the petitioner submitted Ext. P6 reply expressing his surprise over the failure of the department in not taking the telephone under safe custody as requested by him with effect from 30-11-1988 and expressing his inability to pay the bills for the telephone calls not actually made by him. In Ext. P6 he has also made a request to the first respondent to take the telephone for safe custody and confirm action. To Ext. P6, the petitioner received Ext. P7 reply in which it is stated that the telephone No. 613326 provided to the petitioner at 2A, Temple Rock, No. 44, New Avadi Road, Madras-10 was found to be under misuse by one Shri Yousuf Ahmed and hence the line was disconnected on 4-4-1989. Ext. P7 further refers to a letter dated 9-3-1989 (Ext. P7(a)) issued by the Area Manager (North) Commercial Branch (North) 1/11, Madras Telephones, Madras to the petitioner narrating the circumstances under which the telephone 613326 could not be taken to safe custody. Ext. P7 also refers to another letter No. P.613326/20 dated 31-12-1988 (Ext. P7(b)) addressed by the second respondent to the petitioner in which it is for the first time stated that the telephone could not be taken to safe custody on 30-11-88 because the petitioner made a telephonic request to the second respondent in the last week of November, 1988 stating that he will be out of station for some time and requesting the second respondent not to act upon Ext. P1 letter until receipt of further communication from the petitioner. Immediately on receipt of Ext. P7 the petitioner gave Ext. P8 reply in which he has categorically denied having made any request to the Area Manager (North) to cancel his request to take the telephone under safe custody. The petitioner has also complained in Ext. P8 that the respondents have failed to comply with the instructions regarding addressing communications to his Calicut address during the period safe custody. To Ext. P8, the second respondent issued Ext. P9 reply in which it is reiterated that the petitioner had requested over phone to the Commercial Officer in his residential phone No. 555486 in the last week of November, 1988 not to act on his request to take the telephone under safe custody and hence the telephone was not taken to safe custody. Immediately on receipt of Ext. P9, the petitioner sent Ext. P10 reply in which it is stated as follows :

(3.) This court by order in C.M.P. No. 16327/89 dated 30-6-89 issued an interim stay on condition that the petitioner remits the amount covered by Ext. P. 11 (a) within two weeks from the date of order. As per order in C.M.P. No. 24243/89 dt. 29-9-89 this court issued an interim order staying all further proceedings "to recover telephone 613326 on the basis of Ext. P. 12" which is a letter addressed by the office of the Area Manager informing him that orders are being issued to recover the telephone for reasons explained in the said letter.