KEYA GHOSH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this application has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw the demand of additional security deposit of Rs. 13,599/- in terms of annexure 'B' to the writ application and to review the same in terms of agreement dated 8th Febuary, 1993 as contained in annexure 'A' to the writ application. The petitioner applied for and was granted installation of a pay phone with STD and ISD facilities. For the aforementioned purpose, the parties entered into the aforementioned agreement dated 8th February, 1993, relevant clauses thereof read thus :-

(2.) The petitioner contends that with effect from 24.7.93 the policy with regard to payment of security amount was reviewed. On 22nd May, 1994, the petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 9600/- towards security amount whereafter the said line was installed on 22nd July, 1994. The petitioner has contended that in between the period 22nd January, 1996 and 9th August, 1996, the bills which are contained in annexure 'C' to the writ application, were raised against the petitioner and the same have been paid. The petitioner has further allegedly deposited a sum of Rs. 439/- on 22nd August, 1996. Thereafter the impugned demand of additional security dated 24th June, 1996 was made. The petitioner's telephone connection was disconnected on 5th August, 1996 but according to the respondent, the said disconnection took place on 22nd August 1996. Upon receipt of the bill for payment of the additional security, the petitioner submitted a representation for reconnection of the said Payphone on 23.9.96 a copy whereof is contained in annexure 'B' to the writ application. The petitioner further made a representation on 14.10.66. Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of Union of India wherein, inter alia, it is stated-

(3.) Mr. Banik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is an unemployed lady and pursuant to the scheme of the Central Government itself she had to deposit security deposit of Rs. 9600/-. The demand for payment of additional security must be held to be an arbitrary one. The learned counsel points out that whereas in the bill in word, "additional security" had been mentioned, in the affidavit-in-opposition it has been stated that the amount of security was calculated on the basis of average revenue of six months as per policy revised on 24.7.93. The learned counsel further points out that the respondents have also referred to non-payment of certain bills although the same had been paid. Mr. Banik would urge that in any event, the said policy decision ought to have been communicated to the petitioner. The learned counsel further would urge that as admittedly telephone connection was disconnected in August 1996, there cannot be any bill for the subsequent months as have been detailed in paragraph 4(i) of the affidavit-in-opposition.