K PARAMASIVAM Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) SINCE the issues involved in the above writ petitions have arisen out of the same facts and circumstances, a common order is passed. W.P.No.3210 of 2001:

(3.) IT has been stated that the petitioner in W.P.No.3357 of 2001 is having the telephone with telephone No.4971743 in his premises at No.7, Manasveni, 78-A, T.T.K. Road, Alwarpet, Chennai, under the OYT Scheme. The said telephone had been installed in the premises of the petitioner in the year, 1996. Since the usage of the telephone is minimal, the average bill amount had never exceeded Rs.1,000/-. However, the petitioner had received the bill, dated 10.8.2000, for the period 1.6.2000 to 31.7.2000 for Rs.95,445/-. Since the petitioner had not used his telephone to that extent, he had made a detailed representation to the concerned officials, on 30.8.2000, requesting them to investigate the matter and to send an amended bill to enable him to make the necessary payment. On 20.9.2000, the second respondent had sent a letter stating that the telephone bill had been issued to the petitioner based on the actual usage of the telephone. Further, in the bill, dated 10.10.2000, for the period from 1.8.2000 to 30.9.2000, a sum of RS.30,485/-, had been demanded for 23271 units. Since the petitioner was not liable to pay such huge amounts, the bills remained unpaid.