UNION OF INDIA Vs. N VASUDEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order of 8th February, 1992 made by the State Commission of Tamil Nadu in Appeal Petition No. 155/91.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly are: On 6th of October, 1988 the respondent complainant registered for a new telephone connection to be installed at his address P-35, Ahmed Colony, Ramalinga Nagar, Tiruchirapalli. When the registration for telephone connection matured some time in 1991, the respondent intimated change of his address and desired that his new telephone be installed at 12. Shopping Complex, Salai Road, Tiruchirapalli. The appellant made investigation into the bonafides of the applicant at this point of time and found that the applicant was not residing at the new address given by him at which the telephone was to be installed. In fact he was not residing in Tiruchirapalli and his permanent address is at Neiveli. On these considerations, the appellant refused to provide the telephone connection at the new address.

(3.) IN the appeal filed by the petitioner complainant the State Commission took the view that it is not the law that a person who applies for a phone to be installed at a particular premises must be the owner or a tenant under a valid agreement of tenancy and that the complainant in this case was either residing or having some business in that premises and, therefore, he is entitled to have a phone. The State Commission cited the case of his predecessor tenant in the Shopping Complex who also had a telephone connection. It therefore, directed the respondent to give a telephone connection to the complainant.