ELECTRO FABRICS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relevant facts briefly stated are these: The petition M/s. Electro Fabrics has a telephone connection No.25765 located in Shop No.5 in the Industrial Estate, Adhartal, Jabalpur. In the present position, it is claimed by the petitioner that the demand made by the telephone authority concerned of the Government of India vide supplementary bill dated 11.2.1987 (Annexure-P/1) for Rs.10,500/- as arrears of rent charges for the period 21.8.76 to 31.5.87, was on the face of it unauthorised and illegal and it is in the interest of justice that the respondents including the authority concerned of the telephone department are restrained from taking any action against the petitioner in respect of the said telephone pursuant to the said demand.

(2.) Now, by making a reference to Rule 434 of the Indian Telephone Rules, 1951, it is pointed out on behalf of the department concerned of the Government of India that the supplementary demand for Rs.10,500/- was made by the telephone authority concerned from the petitioner in accordance with the scale of charges under Sub clause (a) of Clause (2) of Section III to the said Rule. The said section relates to scale of charges for connections beyond the local area in respect of both measured ratio and flat rate systems and Sub clause (a) thereof relates to telephone connections not exceeding 5 kms. of actual length beyond the local area. According to the said respondents, it was discovered after a lapse of several years that the telephone connection granted to the petitioner was situated at a distance of 3.65 kms. beyond the local area and as such the petitioner should have been charged an additional amount per annum by way of increased rental. It was for the said reason that a supplementary bill for Rs.10,500/- constituting the difference and covering the period from 21.8.1986 to 31.5.1987 was served on the petitioner in the year 1987.

(3.) From a perusal of the record of the case we find that it is not in dispute that when the telephone connection in question had been installed in the premises of the petitioner, they were duly informed by the authority concerned of the telephone department as to what would be the amount of rental chargeable from them in respect of the same. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of the rental so levied, the petitioner paid the same regularly during all this period from 21.8.76 to 31.5.87. ft might be that at the time of the initial levy, the amount of rental was wrongly fixed and did not take into account the provision regarding additional charges contained in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (2) of Section III to Rule 434. But, then, the petitioner could in no way be held responsible for the alleged wrong fixation of the rental. In the circumstances of the case, the department concerned of the Government of India was bound by the representation made by its telephone authority concerned to the petitioner at the time of the initial levy of the rental, and is estopped from making a demand for any additional amount with retrospective effect after a lapse of more than ten years.