B V MANEK Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE under Rules 147 and 148 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (O. S.) Rules, 1980 is granted to the plaintiff to take out Notice of Motion in terms of the draft Notice of Motion handed in. By consent, Notice of Motion is made returnable forthwith and placed for hearing. The defendant waives service.

(2.) THE plaintiff is a doctor by profession. Pursuant to the application made by the plaintiff in December, 1987, the defendants Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ("m. T. N. L. " for short) provided a telephone connection to the plaintiff under special category bearing Telephone No. 5603314 at the plaintiffs residence at B-8, Mugh Malhar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. , 2nd floor, Murar Road, Mulund (W), Bombay-400 080. Thereafter, the defendant shifted the said telephone to the plaintiffs present address of Flat No. A-2, ground floor, Anubhav, R. P. X. Road, Mulund (W.), Bombay. There is no dispute that the plaintiff has paid all the bills sent to the plaintiff with respect to the said telephone No. 5603314. The main grievance of the plaintiff is that without issuing any prior notice and without assigning any reasons, the defendant disconnected the plaintiffs telephone. The plaintiff says that by reason of this highhanded and arbitrary action on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff is suffering grave and serious hardship. The plaintiff has therefore taken out this Notice of Motion for mandatory interim reliefs.

(3.) IN contesting the Notice of Motion, the defendant contended inter alia that the plaintiffs telephone has been placed under special disconnection with effect from April 20, 1995 under the instructions contained in Dy. General Managers (TRA) letter dated May 11, 1994. It is averred in the affidavit of P. R. Tambe, filed on behalf of the defendant, that the plaintiffs father V. N. Manek was a subscriber of telephone No. 5680227. The said V. N. Manek fell in arrears and inspite of oral as well as written request from the Department, failed to clear the arrears and therefore the telephone connection of V. N. Manek was disconnected. It is also averred that the defendant had issued a notice dated November 8, 1994 to V. N. Manek for clearance of the outstanding failing which his son i. e. , the plaintiffs telephone No. 5603314 will be disconnected. It is claimed that a copy of such notice was also marked to the plaintiff for information. The defendant says that the telephone of the plaintiff is being suspended as the same was under use by V. N. Manek and his family members. The defendant says that they are empowered to disconnect the telephone of the plaintiff by recourse to Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules.