RAGHUBAR DAYAL KANODIA Vs. UNION OFINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions under Arti cle 226 of the Constitution raise a common question for determination. In both the petitions it is prayed that a Writ of cer-tiorari be granted quashing the order dated 27-7-1967 which was passed indivi dually against each petitioner. It is fur ther prayed that writ of mandamus be issued directing the opposite parties not to disconnect or remove telephone No. 32702 in case of the petitioner in the first case and telephone No. 33262 in case of the petitioner in the second case. In both the petitions there is a further prayer also for an interim order com manding the opposite parties not to dis connect the said telephones. This Court issued an interim order in each case. It, however, appears that in Writ petition No. 3159 of 1967 the telephone of the peti tioner was actually disconnected before the interim order passed by this Court was communicated to the Authorities con cerned. In the second case, however, the stay order was communicated before the actual disconnection of the telephone.

(2.) BOTH the petitioners in the instant Writ petitions are businessmen having telephone connections in their business premises. A bill for the fixed rental for the period from 1-4-1967 to 30-6-1967 and local calls for the period from 1-12-1966 to 28-2-1967 was given to and received by the petitioner of each case in March, 1967. The amount demanded under the bill in the case of R. D. Kanodia petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3159 of 1967, was Rs. 657.30 Paise. The number of local calls shown in the bill during the relevant period was 4292. In the case of R. C. Gupta, petitioner in writ petition No. 3164 of 1967, the amount demanded under the bill was Rs. 122.85 Paise and the number of local calls noted in the bill for the period was 729. It is admitted that both these bills were duly paid by the peti tioners. Subsequently, however, a further bill was submitted to each of the peti tioners in July, 1967 demanding a further sum of Rs. 4, 500 in case of Kanodia and a further sum of Rs. 5, 000 in case of Gupta which amounts were required to be paid by the party concerned within fifteen days of the date of issue of each bill.

(3.) TODAY Mr. H. N. Seth. learned counsel for the respondents, showed me the special register which according to his instructions, is maintained at Kanpur and on the basis of which the revised bills were sent to the two petitioners. On seeing the special register at least I was, prima facie, satisfied that the bills which were subsequently sent were in con formity with the figures noted in that re gister. It has, however, been suggested on behalf of the petitioners that no re liance can be placed on the register and that a casual look into the register itself might show that in fact the register had been written at one and the same time and that it may very well have been manufactured for certain purposes. It is not necessary for me to go into the ques tion and to give any decision as to whe ther the special register is a genuine re gister or it has been forged or manufactur ed for the purpose of defence in these cases or for the purpose of sending ficti tious bills to the petitioners. Indeed, I am not in a position either to investigate into this question or to re cord any finding thereon. I was also, prima facie, satisfied by the explanation given by Mr. Seth that even if you ignore the circle marks placed around certain figures on certain dates you will get the correct figure shown in each of the revised bills by calculating the number of local calls in each case from the Meter readings noted in the special register.