PRADEEP KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under ! Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28-2-1994 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) demanding additional security and restoration fee and a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the telephone facility to the petitioner immediately.

(2.) Shorn of the irrelevant, the facts in brief are that the petitioner got telephone connection installed on 23/01/1992 at the address 31 M.T.G. Preetam Nagar, colony Allahabad with a telephone No. 633231 and enjoyed the facility till 31/12/1992 without allegedly receiving any bill during that period. He then applied on 31/12/1992 for keeping the telephone in Safe Custody from 1/01/1993 to the end of May, 1993, because he was shifting to another address 63/1 Ganga Enclave, Awas Vikas Colony, Jhunsi, Allahabad. In July, 1993 the petitioner shifted to 249 M.T.G. Preetam Nagar Colony, Allahabad and requested for revival of the telephone on the aforesaid new address and for that purpose moved applications dated 12-8-1993, 22-9-1993; 9-10-1993 and 15-12-1993, but to no avail. Then he contacted the j Department of the respondents, he was told j that a bill of Rs. 5038.00 was pending against the petitioner. It may be remarked that on 23-2-1993 the Department had allegedly disconnected the telephone in default of payment of the bills. The petitioner deposited the said amount in two instalments of Rs.3,962.00 on 19-1-1994 and Rs. 1076.00 on 16-2-1994. The respondent No. 1 is said to have passed orders on 28/01/1994 demanding Rs. 200.00 as rent; Rs. 100.00 as restoration fee and Rs. 1200.00 as additional security.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner in detail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued firstly that there is no alternative remedy available to the petitioner because his case regarding dispute of excess billing and demand of restoration fee and additional security is not covered by S. 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. Secondly because petitioner had demanded facility of Safe Custody the telephone could not have been disconnected during that period. Thirdly dis-connection could not have been done without notice and the action of the respondents was against principles of natural justice. It has therefore, been urged that the petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 28/01/1994 be quashed and the connection be restored.