SUNIL KUMAR CHABRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by means of this petition has approached this Court seeking relief for quashing the notice dated 14 -3 -1996 (Annexure -P -4), issued by the respondent No. 3, Divisional Engineer (Phones); for restraining the respondents from collecting the Demand Note (Annexure -P/5) and quashing the same; issuance of command to the respondents to restore the petitioner's telephone connections bearing Telephone Nos. 21300 with STD/PCO facility and 5062 at an early date and also to quash the order of disconnection passed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 of the petitioner's Telephones No. 21300 with STD/PCO facility and T.C. 5062 at an early date. The petitioner was having telephone connection No. 5062 in his name and was also running a STD Booth (PCO Center), the number of which was 21300. Telephone No. 5062 was not having STD facility. Running of STD/PCO Booth was the source of livelihood of the petitioner. STD/PCO facility was provided to the petitioner under an agreement and the status of the petitioner was that of an agent of the Department.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as pleaded in paragraph 6.4 of the petition is that the petitioner has no dues against both the telephone connections i.e. against his personal Telephone No. 5062 and also against STD/PCO Both Telephone No. 21300. Shri Y.K. Verma, Sub -Divisional Officer (Phones) made a surprise visit along with his three Inspectors to the petitioner's STD Center and he took away the monitor, which, is an instrument for running the STD Phones. Both telephone connections i.e. private and STD/PCO were disconnected on 6 -3 -1996. The petitioner in this respect lodged a report with the police. Officer -In -Charge of the Telephone Department lodged a report at the Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur to the effect that when STD was made with telephone bearing No. 21300, bill of said STD came from telephone bearing No. 22457, which is the telephone connection of one Pawan Kumar Agrawal and prayed that offence under sections 397, 420, Indian Penal Code and section 20(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 may be registered against the petitioner and Pawan Kumar Agrawal. Consequent upon the aforesaid report to the police, the police registered the offence against the petitioner as well as against Pawan Kumar Agrawal.

(3.) IT is not disclosed in the petition as to what happened in the criminal case registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under sections 397, 420, Indian Penal Code and section 20(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Thereafter on 14 -3 -1996 a notice with Demand Notice No. TRA/Def/ Unauthorised/2 dated 14 -3 -1996 was issued and served on the petitioner on 15 -3 -1996. The said notice was to the effect that the petitioner's STD/PCO was found working unauthorisedly with the telephone connection of Pawan Agrawal's Telephone Connection No. 22457 with effect from 12 -10 -1995 and dues outstanding was specified at Rs. 1,09,617/ - and it was also stated that telephone No. 22457 was found connected with petitioner's PCO Monitor on 6 -3 -1996 and STD calls were made from Telephone Connection No. 22457 and during the period the STD/PCO No. 21300 was found disconnected from the Monitor. It is also stated in the said notice that in the event of failure to make the payment of Demand Note, all telephone connections i.e. T.C. Nos. 21300, 5062 and 22457 will be disconnected. The said notice contains an incorrect statement that telephone connections will be disconnected within seven days i.e. by 22 -3 -1996, but the fact was that the disconnection was made on 6 -3 -1996.