HIMESH SABHLOK Vs. INDIAN TELE COMMUNICATION DEPTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Kaushalya Sabhlok, mother of the petitioner and respondent 3 had been allotted telephone No. Chandigarh. 43454. She passed away on 27-1-1986. The petitioner being the son of the deceased applies for the transfer of the said telephone in his name, but the telephone was disconnected in Sept. 1986. The petitioner then resorted to filing the present writ petition under the provisions of Art.226 of the Constitution of India, mainly on the ground that under para A 1.2 of the instructions issued by the Director General, PandT, New Delhi on 22-7-1983, in the event of death of a person to whom the telephone is allotted, the telephone connection may be transferred to one of the children residing at the station by mutual consent if the spouse of that person is not living. It is averred that the petitioner is the only son of the deceased living at Chandigarh and rather in India, and that the other son respondent 3 has been residing in America for the last 34 years. Respondent No. 3 wrote a letter to respondent 1 to the effect that he will not be responsible for the dues of the telephone and, therefore, the same may be disconnected. The petitioner then approached the telephone authorities from time to time stressing on the above mentioned ground that since respondent No. 3 the other son of the deceased is living outside outside India, no question of mutual consent arises. But ultimately vide letter dt. 31-7-1987 (copy annexure-P-6) the telephone authorities directed the petitioner to furnish a 'No Objection Certificate' from respondent No. 3 in order to enable them to take further action in the matter of transfer of the telephone in his name.

(2.) In the return filed by respondent No. 3 brother of the petitioner, it was contended that the petitioner had concealed the factum of house No. 730, Sector 8-B at Chandigarh along with its fittings and fixtures including the telephone in question having fallen to the share of the answering respondent on the basis of family settlement dt. 9-2-1986 which was duly acted upon (Photostat copy annexure-R-1) between the parties after the death of their mother Smt. Kaushalya. It was further clarified that another house along with its fittings and fixtures and also a telephone installed therein, located at Solan belonging to the mother of the petitioner and the answering respondent had fallen to the share of the petitioner and that he is enjoying that telephone facility. It was also maintained that thereafter the petitioner started living in the house at Chandigarh as a tenant under respondent 3 vide rent note (Annexure-R-2) dt. 4-3-1986. The remaining allegations of the petitioner were controverted.

(3.) In the return filed by respondents 1 and 2, it was contended that the mutual consent of the heirs of the deceased is required for the transfer of telephone connection, as per rules, besides stressing that the mutual consent has otherwise become inevitable due to development of House No. 730, Sector 8-B at Chandigarh' in the name of respondent 3 on the basis of family settlement.