MANJU GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 5, Hemant K. Lal, who was the authorised subscriber of telephone No. 23309 in Chandigarh gave a citation in the News paper for the transfer of his telephone as per the provisions of Third Party Transfer Rules (hereinafter called the Rules). The petitioner who was in need of a telephone responded to the citation and after ascertaining that the telephone was transferable as per the rules, entered into an agreement with respondent No. 5 for the transfer of the telephone. The general condition governing the transfer of telephone have been enumerated as under :

(2.) Written statements have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and also respondent No. 6. In the reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the broad facts stated in the petition have been admitted but by way of justification it has been stated that the transfer documents filed by the petitioner on 27th of May, 1988 were not complete and as such could not be acted upon. It has farther been submitted that after an examination of the documents received it was found that the letter of consent for transfer was not in the prescribed form (Annexure III) and was not attested by a First Class Magistrate as required under the Rules. It has been stated that the letter dated 2. 6.1988 was thereafter addressed to '"respondent No. 5 in which he was requested to have the necessary formalities. completed with and it has been admitted that the documents duly completed were received by the department on 21st of October, 1988 It has also been stated in the reply that before any action could be taken on the transfer application made by the petitioner, respondent No. 5 the original hirer of the telephone made an application on 4th of November, 1988 by which he revoked his consent with respect to the petitioner and gave it in favour of respondent No. 6 instead. Copy of this application has been appended as Annexure R.3 with the reply. It appears to me from a further reading of the reply that the department which had been moving rather slowly in transfering the telephone to the petitioner, thereafter proceeded with extra ordinary speed and the transfer of the telephone was made in favour of respondent No. 6 on 18th of November, 1988. The speed with which the officials of the respondent department had acted cm the application made in favour of respondent No. 6 is borne out from the written statement filed by that respondent. It appears that an affidavit requesting the transfer in favour of respondent No. 6 was executed on 8th of November, 1988. The matter was processed expeditiously and demand note issued on 16th of November, 1988 and the transfer order in favour of respondent No. 6 issued on 18th of that month vide Annexure C.2 with the reply.

(3.) After hearing the parties, I find that the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in transferring the telephone to respondent No. 6 is fully unjustified and un-warranted. A reading of Rule E-3 which have been quoted above would show that the only requirement for the transfer of a telephone was that an application duly signed by both the transferer and transferee was to be filed and that application was to be accompanied by a certificate indemnifying the department of telecommunications against, future claims and agreeing" to pay all previous dues etc. It will be seen that the Rules quoted above do not require that the consent letter was required to be attested by a First Class Magistrate or to be in any specific form. Even in the written statements filed by the respondents, this particular aspect has not been clarified. It appears to me that the import of the Rules is that after the application had been made on 27.5.1988 respondent No. 5 the original hirer ceased to have any control over the telephone and the matter was thereafter to be sorted out between the transferee i. e, the petitioner and the department. It is also indeed surprising that the documentation was admittedly completed and but in the hands of the department on 21st of October, 1988 but nevertheless the department chose to act more expeditious on the application filed by respondent No. 5 on 4th of November 1988 favouring the transfer of telephone in favour of respondent No. 6. The official respondents have stated in the written statement that the attestation of the Magistrate on the consent letter had been obtained mysteriously and were of the opinion that the said affidavit should not be acted upon and I quote :