JAGDISH NATHALAL BARAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. I have heard both the sides on merits at length. I, therefore, proceed to dispose of this petition finally.

(2.) Jagdish Nathalal Barai of Rupen Bunder has filed the present petition to challenge the action of the respondent No. 2 in passing the order dated 2-1-1996 to disconnect his telephone No. 4312.

(3.) Present petitione is having 2 telephone connections, one a Local P.C.6. bearing No. 4312 and another having S.T.D. facility bearing No. 4553 and he is using the telephones respectively from 2-5-1995 and 8-10-1991. It is further the case that on 25-8-1995 the petitioner received a notice from the department of respondent No. 2 that the petitioner is using conference facilities unauthprisedly for his telephone No. 4553 and therefore, a show-cause notice was being served on him under Rule 420 of Indian Telegraph Rules (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) as to why the S.T.D. P.C.O. telephone bearing No. 4554 (4553) be not disconnected. The petitioner accordingly replied the said notice by stating that the claim that he was making use of the conference facilities on the said P.C.O. was not correct and he also required the department to clarify as to how said alleged claim was made against him. But thereafter no action was taken but the allegations were repeated by a notice issued on 27-11-1995. Same was again replied by reply dated 7-12-1995. Though the petitioner was asking the department repeatedly to give him hearing/no hearing was given to him. But all of a sudden on ,2-1 -1996, the respondent No. 2 passed an order to disconnect the telephone No. 4312 without issuing the show-cause notice as provided by the said Rule 420 and therefore, he has come before this Court to quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent No. 2 to disconnect the telephone No. 4312 without issuing a notice under Rule 420 of the said Rules.