SAVITRI DEVI TOLASARIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order of the learned single Judge dated September, 23, 1997, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed an application for writ, inter alia, with a prayer for a direction on the Telephone Authorities to restore the telephone connection of the writ petitioner being Numbered 474-6441. The admitted facts are that both the writ petitioner and her husband had two independent telephone connections, Numbered 475-5651 in the name of the husband and other number as mentioned in the above in the name of the writ petitioner. There was default in payment of telephones bill with regard to the telephone line standing in the name of the husband and notices of such default had been served on the husband of the present writ petitioner, the wife. Since no payment was made the line of the writ petitioner wife had been disconnected, though admittedly there was no default with regard to her telephone connection, along with the connection of the lines standing in the name of the husband.

(2.) We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant, challenging the aforesaid order, as also the learned Advocate for the Telephone Authorities. No Rule has been pointed out to show or justify that in case of disconnection for default of the line of the subscriber the line also standing in the name of a relation of his will be liable to be disconnection notwithstanding that there is no independent default with regard to the latter. A decision, which is stated to have been delivered by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court has been cited before us. The said decision does not indicate any reason or ground for refusal to interfere with such disconnection and we respectfully disagree with the same. Every subscriber has his or her own independent right to get the continuance of the line so long he or she complies with the requirements, which are to be fulfilled by him or her, including the payment of the telephone bills. He or she cannot be made liable for default committed by another subscriber, who accidentally may be his or her relation, because if such a practice is encouraged it would also result in discrimination in imposing a penalty for non-payment of bills as in the case of a subscriber none of whose relations has any telephones connection, the penalty gets restricted to disconnection of his line alone but not so in the case of one, whose relation also accidentally is a subscriber and is not guilty of having committed any default. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned single Judge, allow the Appeal and issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the line (474-6441) within a week from this date. We, however, make it clear that this order will not prevent the respondents from taking steps in accordance with law in future for any default on the part of the subscriber. We also clarify that from the date of disconnection till the date of restoration no rental will be charged with regard to the writ petitioner.

(3.) The appeal is thus disposed of.