PRADEEP KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A counter-affidavit/return has been filed in this case on behalf of the respondent on 5-8-1998. Copy of the aforesaid return had been supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner on 27-8-1998.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not propose to file any rejoinder-affidavit denying or controverting the assertions made in the aforesaid return/counter-affidavit.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel representing the respondents.Perused the record.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the telephone-connection provided to the petitioner has been disconnected by the respondents on the ground of there being a default in the payment of the charges by the subscriber of telephone connection No. 320895. The contention is that the respondents had no jurisdiction to disconnect the telephone connection provided to the petitioner on the ground that another subscriber being provided with the telephone connection No. 320895, was a defaulter.

(3.) In the return/counter-affidavit filed by the respondents they have taken a stand that the telephone connection in dispute had been disconnected because Rs. 15,728/- is over due with respect to the telephone connection No. 320895. This assertion has been made in paragraph 3 of the return filed by them.