PARAG ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The firm of Parag Engineering Works is a partnership firm with its Head Office at Tinsukia in District Dibrugarh. The firm runs a branch office at Gauhati where the firm subscribed a telephone bearing No. 27010 with STD facility. The controversy in this case relates to that telephone. In this judgment the firm will be referred as the 'subscriber' of the telephone.

(2.) The performance of the telephone was frequently found by the subscriber faulty. The subscriber complained of the faults to the Telephone Department. The subscriber was informed that "there was some fault in the .earthing." The subscriber complained of. inflation of bills in letters of December 14, 1985, January 6 and April 17 of 1987 and in letters of March 17, May 2, June 1, and October 27, 1987 complained of nonperformance of the apparatus unduly for over a long period but nothing was done to rectify the faults. The Telephone Department at one stage informed the subscriber of cable fault as a chronic problem by one of the officers of the Department. It was suggested the performance of apparatus could be improved if only the indicator of the apparatus is changed. As to the indicator the local Chamber of Commerce at Gauhati organised a meeting at the instance of the subscriber with the Telecom District Manager on May 30, 1988. In that meeting the District Manager consented to change the indicator but todate it is complained it is not changed. The Sub-Divisional Officer was approached by the subscriber over a dozen times. Every time the subscriber was orally assured but promises were never redeemed. Finally on March 17, 1988 a legal notice was served on the Department and the instant writ petition is filed on April 4, 1988.

(3.) The prayers in the writ petition are far too many. The subscriber seeks to declare R. 443 as ultra vines of the Act. The Telephone Department is sought to be directed to change the indicator. One direction sought for is before telephone is disconnected at least 15 days time be added for payment of bills. The Department be directed not to charge rent during the period when telephone remained out of order. That 50% of the rental paid by the subscriber be refunded as complaints made by the subscriber were not properly attended to in time. That the present Sub-Divisional Officer, Telephone Department, Gauhati may be made responsible for the negligent acts of the Department which culminated in the non-performance of the apparatus. The Sub-Divisional Officer be ordered to refund the excess amounts paid by the subscriber.