MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD Vs. OM PARKESH GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the District Forum dated 17th October, 1993. Briefly the facts of the case are that the telephone No.7180031 had been installed in the premises of the complainant-respondent and it remained installed till July, 1993. This telephone number was closed in March, 93 and he was allotted another telephone No.7249618. He was given a bill showing arrears for the period from 20th November, 1991 to 30-6-93 for telephone No.7249618. In view of that bill his telephone was disconnected,. Consequently, he filed a complaint and prayed for interim injunction.

(2.) The learned District Forum granted ad-interim injunction subject to deposit of Rs.1,000/-, in favour of the complainant and directed the respondent to restore the telephone within 3 days of the payment of the amount. He deposited the said amount on 8th October, 1993. The department has come up in appeal against the ad-interim injunction order.

(3.) It is contended by Mr. Joshi that no interim injunction order could be issued by the District Forum. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on A. K. Virmani V/s. D. E. S. U. (Revision Petition No.284 of 1993) decided on 1-10-93 by the National Commission. On the other hand Mr. S. K. Garg, learned Advocate for the respondent, has argued that the complainant/ respondent in pursuance of the order of the District Forum deposited the amount of Rs.1,390/-, which included the amount of Rs.1,000/-. The excess amount was deposited by them as department wanted him to deposit a further amount of Rs.390/-. However, inspite of depositing the amount his telephone has not been restored till date.