SHOBHA CHATURVEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether for the non-payment of the Bill of a closed connection telephone of a Public Company the telephone of the wife of the Managing Director of that Company, which is under liquidation, can be disconnected by the Telecom Authority by invoking Rule 433 of the Indian Telegraph Rules 7, is the short question for our adjudication in this writ petition.

(2.) Firstly the prayer of the petitioner, Her prayer is to quash the order dated 26-12-1990 and the direction as contained in the Letter dated Agra 1-6-1991 addressed to the petitioner of the Account Officer (T.R.) Agra Telephones, Agra (Respondent No. 2) as contained in Annexure Nos. 5 and 11 respectively. 2A. The relevant part of the order as contained in Annexure-5, reads thus :-"Sub :- Disconnection of Phone No. 61743 Kindly disconnect phone No. 61743 in lieu of O/- dues of Closed connection No. 73579."2B. The substance of the communication made vide the letter as contained in Annexure 11 is that she is requested to deposit the due amount of Rs. 3455.00 in regard to Telephone No. 73579, failing which the connection of her telephone No. 61743 can be disconnected and that it is expected that she will got give such an opportunity to the Department.

(3.) The petitioner's case is as follows :- Agra Construction Company Ltd., Agra was a Public Limited Company having its Branch Office at Sanjay Place, Agra. Telephone No. 73579 belongs to the said Company. The telephone bills of the aforementioned telephone of the company were regularly paid except the bill of March, 1989, to the tune of Rs. 3455.00. On account of non payment the aforesaid Bill that telephone was disconnected on 8-6-1989. The company went into liquidation. A Receiver was appointed over its properties by the Delhi High Court. The husband of the petitioner was Managing Director of the company. The petitioner is living at 36, Baghfarzana, Agra having her independent telephone bearing No. 61743 at her aforementioned residence in her own name. She has been regularly paying bills of her telephone but for non payment of the due of the Company's Telephone No. 73579 the order communications as contained in Annexures 5 and 11 have been made even though she has nothing to do with the company. Therefore no coercive action should have been taken against her by the telephone authorities. Their action is against the very concept of law relating to Private Limited companies and accordingly the impugned order and communication are liable to be quashed.