SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER TELEPHONES Vs. SUSIL KUMAR AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was the complainant. He filed complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. His case is that he is a businessman who deals with hardware and building materials at Rairangpur. He has got telephone No. 22047 installed in the year 1989 at his shop. He has been regularly paying the telephone bills in respect of the aforesaid telephone number. In course of time as his business expanded and family members wanted to have another telephone connection, he applied to the appellants by making necessary deposits. Although he complied all the requirements, the appellants did not provide him with the second telephone on the plea that there are some outstanding dues in respect of telephone No. 2041 which was in the name of his uncle. The respondent pleaded and filed an affidavit before the departmental authorities stating that he has absolutely no connection with his uncle and, therefore, even if there was some outstanding dues in respect of telephone No. 2041, he cannot be denied the second connection.

(2.) ON consideration of the facts and circumstances, the District Forum has held that without verifying the allegation of the respondent that he had no connection with his uncle, the departmental aurthorities should not have denied the second telephone connection.

(3.) IT was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the District Forum has exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the appellants to give the telephone connection as per the application of the respondent. The learned Counsel for the appellants is right in his submission that a bald order and direction cannot be issued to the departmental authorities to give telephone connection to an applicant. But if the applicant satisfies all pre -requirements for connection of telephone line, we do not find any justification on the part of the departmental authorities to reject his application. In the case at hand the respondent complied with all the requirements as directed by the departmental authorities. Therefore, in absence of any other valid reason, the departmental authorities should not have refused the telephone connection. Only ground on which respondent was denied the second line of telephone was that some outstanding dues were there in respect of telephone No. 2041 which admittedly does not belong to the respondent. The clear and categorical case of the respondent is that he had no connection with his uncle who has a separate status. The departmental authorities without making any inquiry in this regard illegally rejected the application of the respondent which was in order. Therefore, we do not find any wrong committed by the District Forum in directing the appellants to provide the respondent a second line of telephone.