BHUMENDRANATH GUHARAY Vs. GENERAL MANAGER CALCUTTA TELEPHONES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner approached this Court with the prayer for restraining the respondent/calcutta Telephones from disconnecting his residential telephone with the then number 37-2708 since re-numbered 359-0439 and presumably, must have been re-numbered again. This was over alleged non-payment of bills of cycles 1, 3 and 5 of 1993.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel, Mr. Mukherjee, appearing for the petitioner who referring to the factual backdrop of the present case submits that the writ petitioner was subscriber of a particular telephone which was a domestic connection. Inviting attention of the Court to the copies of the various bills annexed to the writ application, it is submitted that ordinarily over a protracted period of time, the writ petitioner was receiving bill for the amount of Rs. 500/- and around in respect of that particular telephone.

(3.) IT is then alleged that to the utter shock and surprise of the writ petitioner, he suddenly received a bill for an abnormally high amount, i. e. , rs. 8,000/-and odd. This was followed in a few subsequent bills as well. The petitioner immediately approached the concerned respondent authority being the General Manager of the Calcutta Telephones and submitted an application dated 26th March, 1993. He raised dispute over such bill amount.