REPLICA Vs. CALCUTTA TELEPHONES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the partnership firm having its office at 10, Middleton Street, Calcutta-71. By an agreement dated 24th July, 1991 with the Respondent in respect of 6 STD/isd pay phones were granted being telephone No.44-0775, 47-9354, 30-3963, 22-8892, 30-3119 and 44-2554. A bill dated 4th of May'92 was issued to the petitioner of Rs.3,01,960/- was raised in respect of STD pay phone No.44-2554. This was too exorbitant and so the petitioner raised objection. Thereafter the petitioner also raised objection to the bill dated 4/5/92 that the Respondent Authorities raised on 3/7/92 for the period 15/4/92 to 30/4/92 : dt.1/5/92 to 15/5/92, 16/5/92 to 31/5/92 ; 1/6/92 to 15/6/92 and 2nd fortnight of June 1992 which were also exorbitant. So the petitioner raised objection to the said bills and until the objections were disposed of the petitioner could not pay the bills, as aforesaid in respect of the said telephone 44-2554. For this reason the telephone authority disconnected the telephone bearing No.44-2554 and other telephones bearing No.44-0775, 47-9252, 30-3963, 22-8882, 30-3119 on different dates though there was no outstanding in respect of the aforesaid telephones. That inspite of request for restoration of the telephone line in respect of the aforesaid telephones nothing having been done by the respondent authorities the petitioner moved an application before this Commission is being case No.985/92. This case was heard on 30/9/92 and the Hon'ble Commission was pleased to pass an order directing the telephone department to restore the telephones except telephone No.44-2554 immediately. This order was duly served upon the respondents. This was communicated i. e. the order dt.30/9/92. No steps were taken by the respondent for restoration of the telephone lines of the petitioner as indicated in the said order.

(2.) The petitioner by his letter dt.9/10/92 and 16/10/92 requested the Respondent opposite parties for strict compliance of the Commission's order at the earliest possible opportunity but the respondent opposite parties have deliberately and willfully refused to comply with the same till date. If is submitted that the respondents have willfully and deliberately violated this Commission's order dt.30/9/92 for not restoring a single telephone line of the petitioner far less the telephone lines in respect of which this commission had ordered restoration and in this way the respondent are willfully and deliberately lowered the prestige of the Hon'ble Commission by not restoring the line. The petitioner also due to this has been suffering heavy financial loss as well as loss his reputation in the market with the customers.

(3.) Accordingly we find the Telephone Deptt. guilty of contempt and overpayment of Rs.5,000/-by respondent No.1 within a week of passing of this order. The case is accordingly disposed of. Case disposed of.