CHOTA NAGPUR ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for a writ of or in the nature mandamus directing the respondents to restore their telephone connection bearing No. 25711 and 23094 which has been disconnected allegedly because one Susmit Sangeeta Intermagnetics (P) Ltd. did not pay its dues in respect of its telex No. 203 and teledhone No. 25213. By an order dated 25 -3 -87 while this application was admitted, it was directed that the telephone connection of petitioner No. 2, Shanti Modi should be connected forthwith. I am told that this order has been complied with.

(2.) The respondents although were directed to file a counter affidavit within one month from the aforementioned date of admission i. e., 25 -3 -1987 but they have not filed any counter affidavit. The petitioners in the writ application have stated that the petitioners No. 1 is a limited company registered and incorporate under the Companies Act, 1956. It has further been stated that the petitioner No. 2 has got nothing to do with M/s. Sum it Sangeeta Inter -magnetics (P) Ltd. It is further alleged that Nirmal Modi who was Director of the aforementioned company was also a Director of the petitioner Company. The said Nirmal Modi was one of the sons of late Daya Nand Modi whose widow is the petitioner No. 2. The petitioner in paragraph 7 of the writ application clearly asserted that the telephone connection held by them have absolutely no connection with the telex or telephone of M/s. Sumit Sangeeta Intermagnetics (P) Ltd. It is contended in the writ petition that in view of that the petitioner No. 1 as also the aforementioned M/s. Sumit Sangeeta Intermagnetics (P) Ltd. - are two different companies and being separate legal entities, the telephone connection of one could not have been disconnected owing to non -payment of alleged dues by another company.

(3.) When questioned, Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents could not point out any law, rule or any circular having the force of law or any agreement which entitles the respondents to take recourse to such an action. In view of the fact that no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegation made in the writ petition have to be accepted as correct.