SANJAY P KOTHARI Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 1 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam to refund an amount of Rs. 200-, being the difference between the initial deposit of Rs. 5,000/ and the amount of Rs. 4. 800/- adjusted during the period of last 20 years by way Of rebate in the rental. The material facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) WHEN this writ petition came up for admission, Ms. lyyer, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the fact that M. T. N. L. was refunding by way of reduction of rental for 20 years only a sum of Rs. 4,800/- against the deposit of Rs. 5,000/- and illegally retaining a sum of Rs. 200/- from every subscriber under O. Y. T. scheme, thrs writ petition should be treated as a public interest litigation and the respondents should be asked to submit their reply in that light. Accordingly, Rule was issued and the respondents were asked to take note of this submission and to submit their affidavits in that light. The matter was directed to be placed for hearing on the prayer for interim orders today. Both M. N. T. L. and Central Government have filed their affidavits. Having regard to the stance of the respondents in their affidavits, Counsel for the parties are agreed that instead of hearing on the prayer for interim relief, this writ petition itself may be heard and disposed of on merits. Accordingly, by consent, this writ petition taken up for final hearing and disposal.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. S. H. Doctor, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner is entitled to get not only the refund of Rs. 200/- being the difference between the amount of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by the petitioner and the reduction given in the rental charges by way of rebate which amounted to Rs. 4,800/-, but refund of the full amount of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by him. According to Mr. Doctor, on the surrender of the telephone or on completion of 20 years period, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the full amount of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by him. We have carefully considered this submission of Mr. Doctor. We, however, find that this was not the case of the petitioner at any time either before the Department in his application or in this writ petition. The petitioner, in fact, wanted M. T. N. L. to refund the sum of Rs. 200/- which, according to him, it had illegally retained after completion of 20 years. The case of the petitioner before the M. T. N. L. as also in this writ petition was that in consideration of the deposit of Rs. 5,000/-, he has been given adjustment or reduction in rental charges at the rate of Rs. 60/- per quarter for a period of 20 years, as a result of which a sum of Rs. 200/- still remains with the M. T. N. L. which they are liable to refund to the petitioner. The submission of Mr. Doctor before us now is that the petitioner is entitled to refund not only of Rs. 200/- but of Rs. 5,000/- because the reduction of Rs. 4,800/- given during the period of 20 years has nothing to do with the deposit. This submission, in our opinion, is wholly misconceived. There is no foundation, factual or legal, for the same. Though this was not the submission in the writ petition, we propose to deal with the same.