AMARJIT SINGH Vs. BHARTIYA SANCHAR NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Appeal Nos.979 and 981 of 2001 as common questions of facts and law are involved in both these appeals. Has a person an indefeasible right to get telephone connection from a particular exchange or the Department can provide telephone connection from a particular exchange depending upon the feasibility? This is the question that primarily arises in the present appeals. Facts are being taken from Appeal No.981 of 2001, which may be noticed.

(2.) As per the allegations in the complaint, the complainant applied for a telephone connection to SDO, Telecom, Mullanpur Mandi, Ludhiana. A demand notice was issued to the complainant by the Telecom Department on 17th of July, 1992 and he deposited an amount of Rs.1,000 on 11th of December, 1992. As per further allegation in the complaint, the Telecom Department installed 50 pair cable in 1993. Some advice notes were issued to other persons in March 1994. As per further allegations the Department stopped the work and stated that the telephone connections will be issued from Boparai exchange. Mullanpur exchange, according to the complaint, was installed in the year 1996. As per the instructions of the Telephone Department, one Revenue Tehsil is kept within the jurisdiction of one SDCA in case the area of the Tehsil is not more than 2000 sq. metres. The area of Ludhiana Tehsil is less than 2,000 sq. metres and as such the area of the village of the complainant falls within Ludhiana SDCA, therefore, attaching of the area with Jagraon SDCA was against the policy of the opposite parties. It was also alleged that 9 connections are running in his village from Mullanpur exchange and there was no technical hitch in granting telephone connection from Mullanpur exchange. Some telephone numbers were also mentioned which were allegedly running in his village from Mullanpur exchange. The primary relief prayed for was that the complainant be released telephone connection from Mullanpur exchange instead of Boparai exchange. The reason which was given in the complaint may be noticed: "as a call made from Raqba through S. D. C. A. , Jagraon to the stations viz. Chandigarh, Rajpura, Patiala shall be charged at the pulse rate of 30 seconds, whereas the call to the same station through S. D. C. A. , Ludhiana shall be charged at a pulse rate of 120 seconds, as such, the subscriber shall have to pay more for the same call made through S. D. C. A. , Jagraon, if it is made through S. D. C. A. , Ludhiana. "

(3.) It was the case of the opposite side that from the date advice note was issued to the complainant no connection in village Raqba had been released from Mullanpur exchange. After appreciating the evidence and the arguments of both sides, the District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated August 1, 2001. Hence the present appeal.