HARPHOOL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Telephone No. CH-31675 was installed at the request of the petitioner under "Own Your Telephone" category at his shop No. 31, Kabari Market, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. Business in this shop was being run by the petitioner under the name and style of M/s. Ashok Brothers which, according to him, is a family concern of his. Later he started business in another shop, i.e., No. 52 in that market, under the name and style of M/s. Mangal Ram and Sons. As per the original partnership deed shown to me, the petitioner is partner in this firm to the extent of 20%. On a request from the petitioner, the telephone was shifted by the respondent-authorities from Shop No. 31 to Shop No. 52 in the year 1981. An extension of this telephone was installed in Shop No. 31 also. Thus, in a nutshell, the stand of the petitioner is that this telephone was being used in these two premises.

(2.) On 23rd February, 1983, a registered letter dated 17th February, 1983 (Annexure P1) was received by the petitioner informing him that his telephone connection was being disconnected as the same was being used by somebody "other than actual subscribers which was in flagrant violation of the Indian Telegraph Rules." The telephone connection admittedly was disconnected on that very day, i.e., 23rd February, 1983 itself. The petitioner impugns this action of the respondent-authorities primarily on the grounds, firstly, that no show-cause notice in terms of R.421, Indian Telegraph Rules, was served on him prior to this disconnection and, secondly, even if the stand of the respondent-authorities saying that such a registered notice (Annexure R3) issued to him on 1st February, 1983 was served on him on 8th February, 1983, as per the certificate of the postal authorities, still the impugned action of the respondent-authorities is not covered by the provisions of R.429 under which these authorities have purported to act. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length I find that the petitioner deserves to succeed.

(3.) Without going into the factual contentious submission of the parties as to whether the notice as envisaged by R.429 of the said Rules was issued and actually served on the petitioner, I find that the action of these authorities is not covered by R.429 under which the respondent-authorities have admittedly acted. This is how it reads : -