GYRASI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner is the mother of one Sanjay Kedia, in whose name the telephone number 60031 stood. There were certain demands standing against that telephone number. Therefore, it appears that the telephone of Sanjay Kedia was disconnected. The mother of Sanjay Kedia, the petitioner Gyrasi Devi, applied for a fresh telephone connection on 19.10.1992. When the connection was not provided, she made a representation. Annexure -2. Thereafter, the Sub - Divisional Officer, Jharia, Informed her by Annexure -3 that on receipt of her application regarding fresh connection, she has been requested to made payment of Ram Narayan Sharma Versus State Of Jharkhand the outstanding dues against telephone no. 60031 and to produce "No Due Certificate" as early as possible for taking action on her application. It appears that the petitioner did not clear off the dues, nor obtained " No Due Certificate and filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE respondents appeared and contested this writ by filing counter -affidavit, stating, inter alia, that in the name of different members of the family of the petitioner, the telephone connections are there. The head of the family, who is also the husband of Gyrasi Devi, is Sri Purushottam Lal Kedia, Lal Bazar Jharia, near Children Park, Jharia and others are having telephone connection. The details of such telephones standing in the names of the different family members of the petitioner are given in Annexure -B. Altogether 8 home connections are there as per Annexure -B in the name of the different family members. Out of those 8 connections, the connection Nos. 60022, 61133, 864001 are the STD. Pay Home Connections standing at different places, one near Children Park, the other at Katras More and the third at Lal Bazar and the rest are in Children Park, Jharia, one of which is closed now. The sum and substance of the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is that as the said telephone standing in the name of Sanjay Kedia, who is the son of this petitioner, had some outstanding dues against it, so unless that dues are cleared, the new connection could not be given to the mother the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on an unreported decision of Madras High Court, Annexure -A to the counter -affidavit. In that case, the telephone stood in the name of the father, when some outstanding dues were there, the telephone was disconnected. Soon thereafter, the son had applied for a fresh connection and the Court came to a finding that this was a set up case by the father and therefore, the prayer of that petitioner for a direction on the respondents to give a new connection in his name was rejected.