BINOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application the only question to be considered is as to whether telephone connection of a consumer can be disconnected for the reason that a criminal case is pending against him.

(2.) Brief facts which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner is having two telephone connections in his residence being telephone Nos. 407478 and 408478. He has another office telephone bearing No. 407082. As the telephone No. 407478 was out of order for some days, he lodged a complaint but the same was not attended to by the telephone department. On 1.9.1997 the petitioner met the Asstt. Engineer and the mechanic of the department who were making some repair works near his residence. The petitioner requested them to attend his call and get the telephone No. 407478 repaired. Instead of attending the said telephone, it is asserted, the people of the department started abusing him and on protest the petitioner was assaulted and from his person Rs. 250/- along with a watch, a pen and a pocket diary were snatched away. FIR was lodged in this connection giving rise to institution of Adityapur PS case No. 167/97 under Sections 397, 323/34 of the Penal Code. Further case is that as a counter blast to the F.I.R. filed by the petitioner, the telephone mechanic, Mathura Yadav also lodged a complaint before his higher authority alleging manhandling by the petitioner on 1.9.1997. The said complaint was forwarded to the Adityapur police and Adityapur PS case No. 168/97 under Sections 323, 341 and 353 of the Penal Code was registered. Both the first information reports have been annexed as Annexures land 2.

(3.) On surrender the petitioner was granted bail by the Magistrate and having come to know that the petitioner was granted bail, Mathura Yadav, at the instance of others approached the Mazdoor Union as a result thereof the said Union gave a call for strike on the demand of arrest of the petitioner as well as disconnection of his telephone lines. Further assertion is that on the pressure of the Union and O.P Khare and B.D Singh against whom the petitioner had lodged F.I.R., the Divisional Engineer, Telephone (External) Jamshedpur, West, respondent No. 2 issued show cause notice to the petitioner to explain within five' days of the receipt of the notice as to why his telephone lines, namely, telephone Nos. 407478. 408478 and 409478 be not disconnected. The said notice is dated 4.9.1997 which was received by the petitioner on 9.9.1997. Annexure-3 is the show cause notice. The petitioner sent his reply on 12.9.1997 through registered post explaining the entire circumstances and the occurrence which took place on 1.9.1997. Further assertion is that before reply of the petitioner could reach the authority concerned, the aforesaid telephone connections were disconnected on 12.9.1997 itself. It is asserted that being an executive member of the political party the petitioner and others had lodged a complaint before the Chief General Manager against O.P. Khare, Asstt. Engineer, J.O.T. R.D. Singh and Mathura Yadav alleging bungling committed by them and sought for an enquiry. Those three persons being antoganised wanted to teach a lesson to the petitioner. Under this circumstance a prayer has been made to restore the telephone connection of the aforesaid three telephone numbers.