PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Praveen Kumar has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the S.T.D.P.C.O. telephone connection No. 782732 and not to disconnect the petitioner's telephone in future, in case no amount is due against the petitioner, and also directing them to supply the copy of the order whereby the aforementioned telephone was disconnected on 26-10-1998 at 12.00 Noon.

(2.) The petitioner applied for allotment of Public Call Office (P.C.O.) connection and the same was given to him in February, 1997 byvirtue of agreement, dated 24-9-1996, in between the parties. The petitioner had been depositing the amount due from him with the respondents according to the bills received by him w.e.f. 24-2-1997, as per details in the writ petition. On 26-10-1998 the respondents disconnected the aforementioned telephone connection of the S.T.D.P.C.O. telephone inspite of the fact that there were no dues outstanding against the petitioner. That it was done illegally, arbitrarily without any reasonable cause, without any notice and in violation of principles of natural justice. That on query it revealed that Ajmat Singh, father of the petitioners, was defaulter in respect of his telephone No. 782271, and so the telephone connection of S.T.D.P.C.O. belonging to the petitioner was disconnected. That disconnection was done in violation of Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules without any allegations of the breach of conditions of the agreement.

(3.) The respondents alleged that this connection No. 782732 is S.T.D.P.C.O. connection and is merely a licence on the terms and conditions as contained in the agreement of the granting of licence. That Ajmat Singh, father of the petitioner, owns a sweet-meat shop in the name of 'Adarsh Jalpan Grih' situated at Roorkee Road, Chhutmalpur, and had been subscribing to telephone connection No. 782271 since 10-12-1995. That when the petitioner moved for S.T.D.P.C.O. connection in 1996, to be installed in the same shop of his father, then both the father and the son filed affidavits and the father permitted and authorised his son for opening the S.T.D.P.C.O. connection in his shop. That the shop is on rent with the father. That licence for running P.C.O. was granted to the petitioner by virtue of agreement dated 24-9-1996, and P.C.O. was allotted and telephone No. 782732 was given. That since the two telephone connections are in the same shop, the petitioner took advantage of it and misused the telephone of his father for the purposes of business of P.C.O., and therefore, a bill of Rs. 98,353.00 became due against the father. That the rates of calls for P.C.O. and 'individual-subscribing' are different. The father has not been depositing the outstanding amount due from him. That due to this misuse of the telephone of the father by the petitioner for his own P.C.O. purposes, and due to non-payment of the outstanding bill not being paid, the S.T.D.P.C.O. connection was cut off. That the rights of licencee-petitioner are derived from contract, and the writ petition is not maintainable for enforcing the contract.