UNION OF INDIA Vs. NARAYANBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT :-This is a letters Patent Appeal against a decision in appeal from Order No. 90 of 1984. (reported in AIR 1984 Guj 206). That appeal was an appeal against an interim order passed in Civil Suit No. 608 of 1984 before the City Civil Court. Ahmadabad. The appellants before us, who were appellants in Appeal From Order No. 90 of 1984 are the Union of India and the General Manager, Telephones, Ahmedabad. They are the defendants in the suit. The respondent here, who is the plaintiff in the suit, is a subscriber of two telephones at Ahmedabad, one bearing telephone No. 67869 at his residence and the other bearing No. 68233. at his shop.

(2.) A notice under R.421 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 was served on the respondent intimating that both the telephones would be disconnected on the expiry of seven days and pursuant to this notice dated February 6, 1984, the telephones were disconnected, though in the meanwhile the respondent had approached the City Civil Court with the suit and had taken out a notice of motion for injunction. By the time the notice of motion for injunction came up for hearing, the telephones had been disconnected. He, therefore, moved for a mandatory injunction directing the Telephone Engineer, Telephones to reconnect both the telephones. After hearing, by an order dated April 6, 1984, the defendants were directed to reconnect both the telephones within three days of the order. This was subsequently extended up to April 16, 1984. By that time the defendants in the suit filed Appeal From Order to this Court on April 13, 1984 and obtained ad-interim relief enabling them not to implement the order of the City Civil Court. The matter was finally heard by this Court and by an order dated April 26, 1984 this Court found that the plaintiff in the Suit had made out a prima facie case and that on deposit by him of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with the department, one of the telephones will be allowed to operate pending disposal of the suit. Liberty was granted to cancel the show cause notice already issued (evidently referring to the one under R.421) and to issue a fresh notice. Defendants were further directed by that order to restore telephone No. 68223 within a week. It is thereupon that this Appeal is filed by the defendants and interim relief obtained on May 22, 1984.

(3.) By the order of the learned single Judge, the appellants have been permitted to cancel the notice issued by them under R.421 and issue fresh notice. The only controversy between the parties appears to be about the sufficiency of the notice issued to the plaintiff in the suit. According to the plaintiff, a subscriber is entitled to be told why his telephone connection is sought to be disconnected and he should be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause. Disconnection can only be after proper assessment of that objection and for appropriate reasons. In other words, irrespective of the language of R.421, it must be understood having a reasonable opportunity content within itself which requires observance of certain norms considered necessary for reflecting fair play and justice. The department has a case, as seen from the affidavit filed by the divisional Engineer, Telephones, that the subscriber in suspected collusion with the member of the staff was successful in committing theft of telephone revenue by passing over the liability for overseas calls to another subscriber. We are not going into the question of the charge against the subscriber, for, if Rule 421 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, requires that charge should be communicated to the subscriber that must be for a purpose, namely, for enabling him to satisfy the telephones authorities concerned that the charge cannot stand. That has not been done in this case. Merely by mentioning about the charge in the proceedings in Court, no purpose would be served except perhaps, to bias the mind of the Court.