R KAILASH BAI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from disconnecting the petitioner's Telephone No.8242052 installed at Flat No.508, 5th floor, Kaveri Complex, 96/104, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

(2.) According to the petitioner she is carrying on a proprietary business under the name and style of M/s.Sree Mahaveer Electrical at Shop No.4, Premises No.1, Appu Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 and she is an income-tax assessee. The petitioner alleges that Mr.B.Dhanraj Jain, the 4th respondent herein a friend of her husband compelled her husband to use his telephone bearing No.5956042 which was installed at No.65, G.A.Road, Old Washermanpet, Chennai-21 The said telephone was shifted to petitioner's residence at No.55, Ellemman Colony, Teynampet, Chennai-86. It is admitted that the telephone was being used bythe petitioner and her husband at her residence. A bill for Rs.1,28,206, dated 11.3.1998 was received in the name of B.Dhanraj Jain, the 4th respondent herein. When contacted the 4th respondent informed the petitioner's husband that something is seriously wrong in the billing. On an average bill was at the rate of Rs.2700. The 4th respondent was requested to take up the matter with the Telephones as the bill was excessive. Once again another bill was received in the name of the 4th respondent for the same telephone connection demanding Rs.12,18,645/=. The said Dhanraj Jain was contacted and he was requested to take up the matter with the telephones. The 4th respondent kept silent. It is stated that though the Telephone subscriber is 4th respondent the second respondent herein has been continuously demanding payment for the said two bills amounting to a sum of Rs.13,46,851/= from the petitioner's husband. The petitioner's husband issued a notice and pointed out that the subscriber alone could be proceeded and no action could be taken against him. The petitioner's husband sought for shifting of the petitioner's telephone No.4346740 from Ellemman Colony, Teynampet to the business premises. The telephone department assigned a new number, but they have not effected shifting. It is added that the 4th respondent is highly influential and therefore no action is being taken against the 4th respondent. On 19.7.1999 it is alleged that the petitioner's husband received a telegram from the third respondent stating that if the payment due for the telephone No.4339327 is not paid on or before 22.7.1999, the petitioner's telephone No.8242052 will be disconnected and legal action would be taken. It is contended that for the dues payable by the 4th respondent, the petitioner's telephone connection cannot be disconnected, nor she could be proceeded against. The threatened disconnection against the petitioner's telephone connection is illegal. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that it is the petitioner's husband, who sought for transfer of his telephone on account of his non availability at Madras for three years. Therefore he has given a consent letter for shifting to Ellemman Colony, the place of petitioner's residence and her husband. The 4th respondent declared that he has not received any consideration and that he has consented for shifting at the request of the petitioner and her husband. Since 1994, the petitioner's husband is using his telephone on being shifted to Door No.55, Ellemman Colony, Teynampet. The 4th respondent asserts that he was away from the City continuously on account of certain family disputes at his native place in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner or her husband having used the telephone and made calls the petitioner cannot shift the liability or fasten the liability on the 4th respondent. It is further stated that the petitioner and her husband had used the telephone since 1974 till date of disconnection and it is located in their residence and therefore it is they who are liable to pay the telephone bill.