MAHESH AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Mahesh Agarwal prayed for a direction to the respondents to connect the telephone connection and grant the facilities immediately. It has been alleged that he holds a telephone connection No. 365862 for the last 8-9 years and has been paying the bills regularly. The last bill issued to him on 1-1-98 for Rs. 600/- has been paid on 14-1-98 i.e. within the time allowed. The earlier bill was dated 3-11-97 which too was paid on 21-11-97 vide Annexures P/1 to P/4. On 14-1-98 telephone connection of the petitioner was partially disconnected and only incoming calls were coming. On 21-1-98 it was completely disconnected. A legal notice was served on 16-1-98 on the respondents, but to no effect. Return has been filed by the respondents in which the facts alleged by the petitioner have not been denied. The allegation are that another telephone No. 20663 was installed in 32 New Colony No. 2 Birla Nagar, Gwalior, in the house of Shri Om Prakash Agarwal, Advocate, who is the father of the petitioner, where this telephone connection in question i.e. 365862 was also installed. Shri O.P. Agrawal was in arrears and there was a sum of Rs. 21,048/- due against the said telephone No. 20663, for the period 1-8-87 to 1-5-89 which has not been paid. The petitioner's telephone connection has been disconnected w.e.f. 21-1-98 under the provisions contemplated under Rule 443 of the Rules.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no arrears against the petitioner. This fact has not been disputed. The respondents could not disconnect his telephone connection. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon 1997 (2) MPLJ 523 (Chand Datta w/o Lt. Col. S.C. Datta v. Union of India, a decision of this Court wherein the provisions of Rule 443 of Telegraph Rules and Section 7 of Telegraph Act were taken into consideration.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended primarily that the petitioner ought to have approached under Section 7B for arbitration. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon 1995 MPLJ 560 : (AIR 1995 MP 216), Union of India v. Firm Ramchand Naraindas. The contention of learned counsel is that there are two connections in the premises of the petitioner, one is in the name of the petitioner and other in the name of his father. The petitioner's father was in arrears of rent with respect to telephone No. 20663 and hence under Rule 443 of Rules, the petitioner's connection has been disconnected.