J BAGIYAVATHI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM TRA UNIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P. Mathivanan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M. Govindarajan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) IT is stated by the petitioner that she had applied to the third respondent for a new telephone connection in the year 1997. From the date of its installation, the petitioner has been paying the telephone bills promptly, without any default. However, the first respondent without conducting any enquiry, issued the impugned communication, dated 9. 3. 99, asking the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 27,034/-, which is the amount allegedly due, with regard to the telephone NAM. 2071, which had been provided to M/s. Anna Biscuit Company at No. 109, Main Road, Namakkal. In the impugned communication, it was stated that the petitioner's husband was a partner and brother-in-law of the deceased subscriber, Mathiyalagan. The petitioner had been asked to pay the dues on or before 17. 3. 1999, stating that on her failure to pay the said amount the petitioner's telephone with No. 25251 would be disconnected without further notice. In the impugned communication, it is stated that the telephone No. NAM. 2071 had been disconnected on 2. 7. 1990.

(3.) IT is further submitted that inspite of the fact that the petitioner has nothing to do with telephone NAM. 2071, the first respondent had threatened to disconnect the petitioner's telephone with telephone No. 25251 for non-payment of the dues by Mathiyalagan for the telephone No. NAM. 2071 and that too after nearly nine years from the date of the disconnection of the said telephone. It has also been stated that no notice had been issued or enquiry conducted before the impugned communication had been issued by the first respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.