T LAKSHMI ESWARAMMA Vs. JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the demand notice dt.7-9-1988 issued by the respondents demanding Rs.10,000/- as security deposit.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a holder of telephone No. GVA - 611. She was paying the bills regularly. She has not received any bill exceeding Rs. 1,500/-. Originally, her husband was the telephone holder and after that she is holding the telephone. She is a widow as her husband died in the year 1986 and after the death of her husband, the telephone is not used very much at all. While so, the impugned notice is issued without any notice to the petitioner. The Counsel for the respondents contended that under Rule 445 of the Rules for Indian Telephones, the respondents have got power to collect security charges whenever such an occasion arises. Accordingly, as the petitioner was making number of calls, demand notice demanding Rs. l0,000/-assecurity deposit was issued. There is nothing wrong in this and the respondents are authorised by the Rules and the same is within their powers and jurisdiction. There are no merits in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) In view of the above contentions, the only point to be considered is whether the demand notice is valid or not. The petitioner is the holder of the telephone and the demand notice is issued demanding Rs.10,000/- as security deposit. Rule 445 of the Rules for Indian Telephones reads as follows: