ASEEM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Following questions crop up for adjudication in this writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India :-

(2.) The petitioner has made three fold prayers in this writ petition :-

(3.) The petitioner, aged 21 years as per his affidavit dated 13-12-1998, asserts, inter alia, to this effect :- He is resident of Main Market, Ganj Dundwara, District Etah who has set up a commercial establishment (shop) in the main market, which is about 500 meters away from his residence; in order to facilitate his business he submitted an application on 19-3-1998 along with a deposit of a sum of Rs. 2,000.00 (copy of the Demand note in this regard appended as Annexure-I); even though telephone connections have been given to all those persons who had applied subsequently, but he was not given and thus he met Respondent No. 2, who handed over to him the impugned notice-cum-demand note in regard to the Telephone No. 55222 installed since 26-12-1994 in the name of his father at his father's residence showing outstanding dues; though he is resident of the same premises but has nothing to do with the dues; Rule 443 of the Rules does not authorize the Telecom authorities to take such a course; he met Telecom authorities but no heed was paid towards his request; and hence this writ petition.