RAJ KUMAR BAJAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, namely, Shri Raj Kumar Bajaj, was served with a Notice, dated 6-6-2000, issued by the respondents directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 46,680/-, which was claimed to be lying unpaid against phone No. UDL- 24756 or else face disconnection of the petitioner's existing telephone No. UDL- 24422. Terming the notice so served on him as arbitrary, illegal and unjust, the petitioner has approached this Court, with the present application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of appropriate writ(s) or writs setting aside and quashing the said demand notice and the notice of disconnection.

(2.) The case of the writ petitioner is, in brief, thus : The petitioner is a proprietor of Shree Hanuman Rice Mill, Udalguri, Darrang, and has a telephone in the name of his proprietary concern, namely, Shree Hanuman Rice Mill, the telephone No. being 24422. The petitioner has been paying bills regularly in respect of his telephone No. 24422 aforementioned. The petitioner has been served with a notice, dated 6-6-2000. aforementioned asking him to make payment of the said amount of Rs. 46,660 allegedly lying outstanding in respect of the telephone No. 24756, which stood in the name of Shree Hanuman Industries. Shree Hanuman Rice Mill and Shree Hanuman Industries are two distinctly and separate firms owned by two different persons and there is no business link between the two. As no bill/dues in respect of the petitioner's telephone is lying outstanding, the petitioner is not liable to pay the alleged outstanding dues of another subscriber; but unless the petitioner makes payment within 13-6-2000, as demanded, he faces the threat of disconnection of his telephone, which is impermissible under the law.

(3.) When the matter came up for motion before the learned single Judge (Hon'ble J.N. Sarma, J.), the learned single Judge noticed that with regard to Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, which governs the case of the parties, there is a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Santokh Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Telephone. Shillong. AIR 1990 Gau 47. wherein this Court has held that for the outstanding bill of a given telephone of a subscriber, another telephone of even the same subscriber cannot be disconnected, for, the power of disconnection is available under Rule 443 only in respect of the telephone, the bills of which have not been paid or have been lying outstanding. The learned single Judge also noticed that there is another decision rendered in Bhagwanji Devraj v. Union of India, reported in (1975) 16 Guj LR 357. which lays down to the contrary as regards the scope and ambit of Rule 443. On noticing that there was a glaring contradiction between the two decisions aforementioned, the learned single Judge directed the matter to be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench. Consequently, as directed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the matter has been laid before this Full Bench.