VIJAYAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition concerns the validity of the action taken by the respondents in having disconnected a telephone No. 2714 installed, according to the petitioner, at House No. 1/604, Paruthyampallil, Thyckal, Sherthallai, the place where he was practising his profession. Petitioner is a medical practitioner. He was the Chief Medical Officer at Kattoor Government Homeo Dispensary, Mararikulam. The petitioner was deputed as Managing Director of the Kerala State Homeopathic Cooperative Pharmacy Limited at Mararikulam in Alleppey District. According to the petitioner, he has got many patients at Sherthallai and he is offering free consultation to his patients. To facilitate this, he took a room at House No. 1/604, Paruthyampallil, Thyckal, Sherthallai. Though he has now been deputed as the Managing Director of Kerala State Homeopathic Cooperative Pharmacy Limited, he is in need of the telephone in question and there is no reason for the authorities to cause disconnection of the phone on the ground of unauthorised use.

(2.) The petitioner had two telephones-one at Sherthallai and the other at S. L. Puram. He was given a notice dated 21st May, 1987 by the Telecom District Engineer, Alleppey, stating that the telephone numbers Shertallai 2714 and S. L. Puram 183 were provided to the petitioner to the address Paruthyampallil House, 1/604, Thyckal P. O. and Raj Nivas, Kanichukulangara respectively and that it is reported that the petitioner is not residing at Sherthallai or at S. L. Puram and the telephone is being used by somebody else.' In the communication it is further stated that as per rules a telephone provided to a particular subscriber cannot be sold to anybody or used by a third party. This communication is Ext. R2 (a). By Ext. R2 (a), the petitioner was informed that "unauthorised use of a telephone violates the provisions of Art.429 of Telegraph Rules and that in exercise of the powers vested in the telegraph authority under Indian Telegraph R.420, petitioner's telephones are liable to be disconnected and removed. The petitioner was given a chance to explain his position within seven days from the date of receipt of Ext.R2(a).

(3.) Nothing happened pursuant to Ext. R2(a). But, another communication was given to the petitioner, which is marked as Ext. R2(b) in the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that on enquiry, it was understood that Phone No. SLPM 183 is being used by Smt. Umadevi and her relatives and that the petitioner is not residing at the above address. In Ext. R2(b), it is further said that in regard to Telephone No. 2714 also, the authorities came to know that it is being used by the petitioner's distant relatives and that the petitioner is not staying at Sherthallai. The District Engineer, Telecom, asked the petitioner to explain the position within seven days of receipt of Ext. R2 (b) letter.