VIKAS DWIVEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENSIBILITY of the action of the respondent No, 2, District Engineer, Office of Telecommunication, Bilaspur, who has directed the disconnection of the telephone No. BIL 28756 of the petitioner for default of payment by her mother Smt. Sobha Dwivedi, subscriber of telephone No, 24938, is called in question in the present writ petition.

(2.) THE essential facts are that the petitioner, a resident of Shanti Kunj Vidya Nagar, Bilaspur, is subscriber of telephone No. BIL 28756, His mother is the subscriber of telephone No. 24938 installed at Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur. It is admited in the writ petition that the mother of the petitioner was in default of payment of telephone bill in respect of her telephone. A notice in that regard was issued by the Tele -communication Department to her. As far as the petitioner is concerned dues in respect of his telephone has been paid regularly. It is also asserted by the petitioner that he is living separately from his mother and he is an independent subscriber of his telephone. It is also put forth in the writ petition that the telephone of the petitioner has been disconnected on 4.2,98 by the respondent without giving notice in that regard, An application was filed on 6.2.98 for reconnection of the telephone but the same was not accepted, It is averred in the writ petition that action of the authorities is violative of the provisions of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules framed there under. With the aforesaid averments a prayer has been made for issuance of direction to the respondent for reconnection of the telephone of the petitioner.

(3.) ASSAILING the aforesaid action of the telephone department Mr. Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner being a separate subscriber of the telephone no. 28756, his telephone cannot be disconnected as he had not committed any default as a subscriber. He has referred to Rule 443 of the Telephone Rules. His further submission is that before disconnection of the telephone the petitioner was not given any notice for such disconnection, and hence whole action of the respondent no. 2 is vitiated being violative of principle of natural justice.