BHAGWAN DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that late Shri Satyaveer Arya, who was husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2 was doing business in the name and style of Rajasthan Iron and Hardware Mart, at Bhawanimandi, district Jhalawar. Telephone No. 121 was released in his name on the said shop in the year 1973 by the respondents. Said Shri Arya died on 31. 10. 1976, and after the death of said Shri Satyaveer Arya, the petitioners are looking after the said business. The petitioners paid all bills/charges without any delay. There was no complaint against the petitioners for non payment or misuse of the said telephone. The respondents on 25. 5. 1992, disconnected the aforesaid telephone without giving any opportunity of hearing or show cause to the petitioners. The petitioners made representations to the respondents but the respondents did not re-connect the connection. Vide order dated 6. 12. 1992, marked Annexure 2 the respondent No. 2, informed the petitioners that the aforesaid telephone was disconnected under Rule 422 of the Indian Telegraph rules, 1951. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have to file the present writ petition for a direction to the respondents to reconnect the telephone at the aforesaid shop and to quash the order of respondent No. 2 dated 6. 12. 1992.

(2.) THE writ was admitted on 16. 11. 1992. Notice was issued to the respondents. After service they filed a detailed reply to the writ petition. In their reply, they did not dispute the fact regarding releasing of telephone connection in the name of Late Shri Satyaveer Arya, who has died on 31. 10. 1976. THEy further did not dispute the fact that the petitioners are looking after the business, which was started by late Shri Satyaveer in the name and style of Rajasthan Iron and Hardware Mart. In para No. 4 of their reply, the respondents stated that the telephone connection was disconnected under Rule 422 of the Indian Telegraphs Rules. This connection was necessary on account of the fact that brother of petitioner No. 2 Ummesh Yadav, misbehaved with telephone operator Bhajan Lal on 23. 5. 1992. He disrupted the entire exchange by breaking down several wires and dis-connecting running local and trunk calls. He gave severe beatings to the telephone operator Shri Bhajan Lal and forcibly entered the switch room of the operator and disrupted the entire telecommunication system. THE information of the incident was immediately given to the respondent No. 3, who in the same night i. e. on 23. 5. 1992, at about 11 p. m. lodged an FIR with the Police Station, Bhawani Mandi, which was registered as FIR No. 107/92, for offence under Sections 332, 353, 451 read with Section 34 I. P. C. This incident had a severe adverse impact on the moral of the telecommunication staff working at Bhawani Mandi, and other places in the vicinity thereof. THE staff of the Bhawani Mandi telephone exchange, went on strike in protest against the incident of beating, man- handling and causing damage to the Government property on 24. 5. 1992. On 26. 5. 1992, all the four culprits, including the brother of petitioner No. 2, were arrested by police. This news was also published in Rajasthan Patrika in its Kota Edition. It was further mentioned that under these circumstances, the respondent No. 2, decided on disconnect the telephone provided to the family of Late Shri Satyaveer Arya and accordingly orders were passed by him on 26. 5. 1992, under the aforesaid rule. THE respondents also mentioned that Ummesh Yadav is one of the legal heirs of late Shri Satyaveer Arya. THE action was taken on account of emergency caused due to the aforesaid circumstances. THE petitioners concealed these facts and as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground also. It was also mentioned in the reply that the petitioners had alternate remedy of approaching to the District Consumer Protection Forum, Jhalawar, and as such also the writ petition was not maintainable. THEy prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) IN the present case, the respondent No. 2 has exercised his power under rule 422 on the ground that brother of petitioner No. 2 misbehaved with one of the operators of the respondents and caused damage to telephone lines. IN my view, it cannot be said that there was an emergency. The telephone was disconnected on irrelevant considerations and in arbitrary way. It is not in dispute that after the death of Satyaveer Arya, the petitioners were doing the business on aforesaid shop and were paying telephone charges. There were no dues against them and if the brother of petitioner No. 2 caused any damage to the telephone lines or misbehaved with one of the operators of the respondents, the respondents have already taken proceedings against him by filing an FIR. IN my considered view, the telephone of the petitioners was disconnected on irrelevant grounds in arbitrary way. I am of the view that the petitioners were not required to mention all these facts and they have not suppressed any material fact, I am also of the view that the remedy of Consumer Forum can not be said to be a proper remedy and on that ground, the petition can not be dismissed. As the respondents have arbitrarily and without any notice disconnected the telephone connection of the petitioner, which Was necessary for business purposes, I set aside the order of the respondent No. 2, disconnecting the telephone connection of the petitioners and direct them to re-connect the telephone connection on the shop of the petitioners within 15 days from today. The respondents shall also pay cost of the petition Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioners. .