AMREEKSINGH Vs. DIST MANAGER INDORE TELEPHONES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Undisputed facts of this petition are That the petitioner is a subscriber of telephone No. 7598, for over last 12 years. It was installed on his place of business at 1, Kazi Ki Chal, Malwa Mills, Indore. As a result of riots, which broke out in the wake of assassination of Late Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, petitioner's place of business was also looted, his telephone instrument damaged and the same was taken away by the miscreants, which was ultimately restored by the police in broken condition. On 20-11-84, he applied for replacement of instrument, (Annexure-'B') but replacement was not done by the respondents, as he had asked for shifting the same to his new place of business, 11 Usha Ganj, near GPO, Indore. A special power of attorney, Annexure-'A' duly executed by the petitioner in favour of his son Raghuweer Singh, appointing him as his attorney, was submitted to the authorities in compliance of their demand. The petitioner again requested the authorities on 5-1-1985, praying for replacement and transfer of his telephone, but his request was not attended to. On 29-8-85, he appealed to the Commercial Officer, respondent No. 2, to consider his case (Annexure-'D'). A reminder was also sent by the petitioner vide Annexure-'E' on 9-1-1986, but none of these request petitions or reminders were replied to. Although, Amreeksingh was repeatedly contacting the authorities, it was somewhere in the month of Jan. 1986 that he was told that certain bills were yet to be paid and the same were sent to him by the respondents. It was for this reason that his telephone was not restored.

(2.) Petitioner's case is that he had not received bills as such, since Oct. 1984 and ever since, the riots, there was no question of non-payment of bills. Yet on 20-2-1986, he requested Commercial Officer, to send him bills so as to enable him to make necessary payment. The petitioner was finally informed on 25-3-86 (Annexure-'F') that his telephone could not be restored and his prayers in that behalf were rejected. After receipt of this intimation (Annexure-'F') the petitioner served a notice dt. 7th April, 1986 (Annexure-'G') for demand of justice through his counsel but it was not replied to.

(3.) In order to justify disconnection of telephone the respondents have come out with allegations of fraud and non-payment of bills against the petitioner. According to them, two bills (i) dt. 1-11-1984 for Rs. 276/- and (ii) bill dt. 1-1-1985 for Rs. 150/- are still lying unpaid. It is further alleged that the petitioner does not know either English or Hindi, whereas his original application for telephone connection, (Annexure-R-I) bears signatures in English and the application dt. 20-1-1986 for re-connection (Annexure-R-4) bears his signatures in Hindi. They have also sought shelter behind R.443 of the Telegraph Rules, to justify their actions.