LAWS(MPH)-1994-4-87

SHARAT CHANDRA TIWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 07, 1994
SHARAT CHANDRA TIWARI Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 18.2.1984 (Annexure -III) disconnecting his telephone No. 20156. According to the petitioner a lineman of the telephone department climbed up an electric pole to correct the fault of telephone No. 20359 which was installed in the portion of the house occupied by one Shri Mehra as tenant of the brother of the petitioner. It appears that the telephone lines got entangled with the electric lines and the lineman got electric shock and as a result instantaneously died.

(2.) THE petitioner was served with a notice dated 18.1.84 (Annexure -I) to show -cause why action be not taken against him under Rule 425 of the Indian Telephone Rules framed under the Indian Telegraph Act 1980. The department alleged that the petitioner was negligent in not properly safeguarding the telephone apparatus and the lines. The petitioner submitted a written reply (Annexure -II) denying that there was any negligence on his part. Apart from stating the fact that the telephone in the course of repairing of which the accident had occurred is installed in the house occupied by tenant of his brother it was also stated that the petitioner cannot be held guilty of not safeguarding the telephone lines outside his house.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order of dis -connection of the telephone of the petitioner deserves to be quashed on the short ground that consequent upon the issuance of notice to the petitioner under rule 425 of Indian Telephone Rules and filing of written reply of the petitioner, no enquiry was made and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The allegations were such which required an enquiry and finding before a decision was taken by respondents authorities that the petitioner was in any manner negligent in maintaining and safeguarding the equipment and the lines of the telephone. It is, only on the facts, found that it could be held by the authorities that the provisions of Rule 425 or 426 were attracted to the case. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order (Annexure -III) dated 18.2.1984 directing dis -connection of the telephone of the petitioner is hereby quashed. In the circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to the costs. The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner.