GINNI VITREOUS PVT LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Private Limited Company represented by its Managing Director, Sri M.K. Agrawala has filed this application praying for quashing the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telegraphs, Jatni refusing to provide new telephone connections in the name of the Company as well as in the name of Sri Agrawala for which they had applied for.

(2.) The petitioner-company has been incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Khurda and factory site at Gurujang in the district of Puri. The company intends to manufacture Salt Glazed Sewer Pipes and has obtained a registration certificate from the District Industries Centre, Puri during the year 1990. According to the petitioner, it is fairly a big project and the petitioner is in badly need of two telephones, one at the factory site and the other at the registered office of the Company, for which the petitioner had applied on 8-3-1991. On receipt of the application the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department sent two demand notes, vide Annexures 2 and 3, requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,250/- under each which includes the installation fee and other dues for providing two new telephone connections. The petitioner claims to have deposited the demanded amount on 12-6-1991 expecting the telephone connections to be established soon thereafter. Since there was inordinate delay, complaint was lodged before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telegraphs, Jatni (O.P. No. 4) on 24-7-1991, vide Annexures 4 and 5. Having received no reply and finding that persons who had applied for new telephone connections later in point of time had already got the same, the petitioner filed an application before the District Consumers Dispute Redressal Forum, Bhubaneswar. On being noticed, the opposite parties filed an application before the said forum disclosing that it has been decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telephones, Jatni not to give the petitioner any telephone connection. The petitioner also had received a letter dated 17-3-1992 in which it was alleged that one telephone bearing No. KHW-256 installed in the residence of one Om. Prakash Agrawalla and which was being used by Om. Prakash Agrawalla and his family members and that having been disconnected due to non-payment of outstanding dues and the petitioner being the son of the said Om. Prakash Agrawalla, it has been proposed not to provide any telephone connection to him as applied for. In the said communication the petitioner was called upon-to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telephones, Jatni on 30-3-1992 and show sufficient reasons as to why his applications for new telephone connections shall not be cancelled. The petitioner on receipt of the said notice replied, as in Annexure-8, through his Advocate that in view of the pepdency of the matter before the consumers Forum, there is no justification for him to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telephones, Jatni. It was also indicated therein that the petitioner is no way connected with the lapse said to have been committed by Sri Om. Prakash Agrawalla and the plea taken by the Department in support of non-supply of telephone connection to the petitioner is untenable. The petitioner thereafter received a copy of an order passed by opposite party No. 4 refusing to provide the telephone connections, applied for, to the petitioner, copy of which is annexed to the writ application as Annexure-9. The said order is purported to have been passed by opposite party No. 4 in exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 416 of the Indian Telegraph Rules. The said order mentions that on enquiry through S.I.T., Khurda Sri Sk. Jahiruddin, Sri Sarbeswar Pattnaik, LMP, Khurda and from the P.I., Sri R.K. Jena, the Junior Telecom. Officer came to know that the petitioner is the son of Sri Om. Prakash Agrawalla and Ginni Devi Agrawalla is the mother of Om. Prakash Agrawalla. It was further found that telephone No. KHW-256 had been used by Sri Om. Prakash Agrawalla and his family members. From the aforesaid fact a doubt was entertained by the Department that the new telephone is sought to be taken in the name of Sri Mahesh Kumar Agrawalla and the same will be actually used by Sri Om. Prakash Agrawalla and his family members, who defaulted in payment of outstanding amount for telephone bearing No. 256. It is for that reason a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause and since the petitioner did not show cause, the Sub-Divisional Officer after making due enquiry concluded that it would be against the interest of Department to provide a new telephone to the son and family members of Sri Om. Prakash Agrawalla, who is a defaulter. The petitioner's application was, therefore, rejected by the said order. The said order is now under challenge in this writ application.

(3.) The petitioner has alleged that one Atmaram Agrawalla, who was provided with the Telephone No. 256 was threatened that his telephone will be disconnected for non-payment of the telephone bills against which he had invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court in O.J.C. No. 3593 of 1991. In the said writ application this Court as an interimeasure directed the subscriber to deposit sum of Rs. 50,000/- by 30-9-1991 and the balance amount of Rs. 28,251 /- in two equal instalments i.e. by 30-11-1991 and 30-12-1991 and in case the said depisits are made, the telephone shall not be disconnected. In case of default in complying with the aforesaid conditions the Court observed that it would be open to the opposite parties to take appropriate section in accordance with law. It was further directed in the said order that the opposite parties will take prompt steps to refer the dispute to the arbitrator in accordance with the provision of Section 7(b) of the Indian Telegraphs Act and the arbitrator will give his decision within 4 months from the date of receipt of reference. During the course of argument it was stated that Atmaram Agrawalla, the petitioner in the aforesaid writ application did not comply with the directions of this Court as a consequence of which his telephone line was disconnected. But the disconnection of telephone No. 256 for non-payment of the telephone dues. According to the petitioner, can be of no ground for refusal of the telephone connection to him.