P T THANGAM Vs. S PADMANABHAN DIVISIONAL ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the relief of writ of certiorari against an order passed by the first respondent dated 10.12.1993. By that order, the first respondent has pointed out to the petitioner that the petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Nilgiris Udhagamandalam to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- that she was convicted for an offence under Section 366 I.P.C. and also convicted for the offence under Section 5(1) (b) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act The authority further says that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D. Coimbatore has reported this conviction to the Department and therefore, a notice was given to her whereby she was asked to show-cause as to why Telephone No. 424993 working in her name should not be disconnected. The communication further proceeds to suggest that the representation sent by the petitioner dated 20.9.1993 was considered and it was found that the petitioner had committed violation of Rules 416 (2) (C), 421 and 427 of the INdian Telegraph Rules and therefore, it was decided to disconnect the telephone with effect from 18.12.1993. It is this communication, which has been challenged by the petitioner.

(2.) COUNTER has been filed by the 4th respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police, who has been joined as a party respondent to this petition. He points out in his counter affidavit that the petitioner P.T. Thangam with her close friend Tr. D. Ethiraj and Tr.P. Krishnan abducted two girls from Ooty. It is pointed out that the said Ethiraj was himself a Deputy Superintendent of Police while P. Krishnan was a Traffic Reserve Sub-Inspector, Ooty town. It is then pointed out in the counter that the petitioner P.T. Thangam was a notorious brothel keeper running a brothel house at her residence and she was running it for over twenty years and was in the habit of procuring girls for her brother house under the pretext of offering them good jobs at Madras, that she was a history-sheeter and she was provided with telephone connection bearing No. 424993 for her residence at Madras. It is then contended that she had been using the telephone for the above said immoral trade of brothel running. It is then pointed out that she was convicted in a criminal case which went on against her for offences under Section 120-B, 366 419 and 109 I.P.C. and Sec 5(1) (b) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act. It is generally on these grounds that the Deputy Superintendent of Police proceeds to suggest the reason for the action which he had proposed to the Telephone Authority for being taken against the petitioner.

(3.) IN the result, it is held that the order disconnecting the telephone would be incorrect in law and would be liable to be quashed. It is accordingly quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. W.M.P 34504/93 is closed.