IMPORTANT POINT
A wider meaning of Rule 2(pp) of the Telephone Rules 1951 covers the housewife who is economically dependent on her husband.

Headnote:(a) Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 – Rules 443 and 2(pp) – Where two relatives are living in the same house a distinction has to be drawn between a telephone line in the name of a person who is economically dependent on another, and the telephone line in the name of a person who has an independent source of income from which he is paying the telephone bills – In the case of the former, the telephone line in the name of such other relative on whom the subscriber is dependent can be disconnected for non-payment of the telephone bills of the nominal subscriber – The wife who is a house wife and is economically dependent on her husband falls in this category – No infirmity in the impugned judgment. (Paras 19 and 22)
        1989 (16) DRJ 51; AIR 1990 Guj 85 – Approved.
        AIR 1990 Gauhati 47 – Not a precedent.
        AIR 1996 Bom 53; AIR 1993 AP 131 – Distinguished.
        (b) Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 – Rules 443 and 2(pp) – The intention of the Rule 443 obviously was that payment of telephone dues should be made promptly. (Para 21)
        © Interpretation of Statutes – Ordinarily the literal rule of interpretation should be applied while interpreting a statute or statutory rule – In exceptional cases the literal rule can be departed from – To interpret a statute one has to sometimes consider the context in which it has been made and the purpose and object which it seeks to achieve – A too literal interpretation may sometimes frustrate the very object of the statute, and such an approach should be eschewed by the Court. (Paras 23 and 24)
        1964 (6) SCR 784; (1995)6 SCC 326 – Relied upon.
        (d) Interpretation of Statutes – Lakshana and Mimansa rules as well as Maxwell’s system of interpretation discussed. (Paras 27 to 56)
        AIR 1988 SC 2239 – Relied upon.
        (e) Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 – Rule 2(pp) – The word ‘subscriber’ in Rule 2(pp) has to be given a wider meaning. (Para 57)
       Facts of the case:
        1. At that appellant’s residence, there is one telephone line bearing No. 5121187 in the name of appellant Surjit Singh and there is also another telephone line bearing No. 5416493 at the same residence in the name of the appellant’s wife. There is a third telephone line bearing No. 3265301 in the name of the appellant and installed at the business premises situated at another place, separate from the residence.
        2. It appears that there were arrears of telephone dues in connection with line No. 5416493 which was in the name of the appellant’s wife. For non-payment of the telephone dues in connection with this line, the other two lines in the name of the appellant being 5121187 at his residential premises and line No. 3265301 at his business premises were disconnected.
        3. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court which was dismissed, and his appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court was also dismissed.
       Findings of the Court :
        A wider meaning of Rule 2(pp) of the Telephone Rules 1951 covers the housewife who is economically dependent on her husband.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J. —

1. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 10.1.2002 in LPA No. 665 of 2001.

2. Heard Shri R.L. Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Amarendra Saran, learned Addl. Solicitor General for the respondent.

3. The facts of the case are that the appellant and his wife are living together at their residence in Rajouri Garden, Delhi. At that residence, there is one telephone line bearing No. 5121187 in the name of appellant Surjit Singh and there is also another telephone line bearing No. 5416493 at the same residence in the name of the appellant’s wife. There is a third telephone line bearing No. 3265301 in the name of the appellant and installed at the business premises of the appellant at 1195, Chahrahat Building, Jama Masjid, Delhi.

4. It appears that there were arrears of telephone dues in connection with line No. 5416493 which was in the name of the appellant’s wife. For non-payment of the telephone dues in connection with this line, the other two lines in the name of the appellant being 5121187 at his residential premises and line No. 3265301 at his business premises were disconnected.

5. The contention of the appellant was that the telephone lines in his own name being line No. 5121187 at his residence and line No. 3265301 at his business premises should not be disconnected on account of non-payment of dues in connection with the line in the name of his wife being line No. 5416493. He contended that he and his wife are two separate legal entities, and he could not be penalized for the fault of his wife.

6. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 25.9.2001 and his appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court was also dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 10.1.2002. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules which states :

“443. Default of payment — If, on or before the due date, the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone service provided are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with these rules, or bills for charges in respect of calls of phonograms or other dues from the subscriber are not duly paid by him, any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him, may be disconnected without notice. The telephone or telephones, or the telex so disconnected may, if the Telegraph Authority thinks fit, be restored, if the defaulting subscriber pays the outstanding dues and the reconnection fee together with the rental for such portion of the intervening period as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority from time to time. The subscriber shall pay all the above charges within such period as may be prescribed by the telegraph authority from time to time.”

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of Rule 443 the telephone lines in the name of the appellant could not have been disconnected because of non-payment of dues in respect of the line in the name of his wife.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the decision of a Learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Dr. B.V. Manek vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.,1 AIR 1996 Bom 53. We have carefully perused the aforesaid decision and find that it is distinguishable. In that case, the telephone line of the petitioner had been disconnected because of non-payment of the dues of another line which was in the name of his father. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the Department cannot disconnect the telephone of the subscriber on account of the default committed by a relation of such subscriber. It has not been mentioned in the said decision of the Bombay High Court that the petitioner’s father was economically dependent on the petitioner.

10. In the present case which is before us it h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 670

2008(3) Supreme 170SUPREME COURT OF INDIA(From Delhi High Court)H.K. Sema & Markandey Katju, JJ.Surjit Singh — PetitionerversusMahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. — RespondentAppeal (civil) 5354 of 2002Decided on : 21-04-2008

IMPORTANT POINT A wider meaning of Rule 2(pp) of the Telephone Rules 1951 covers the housewife who is economically dependent on her husband.

Cases Referred (7)

2008(3) Supreme 170
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
H.K. Sema & Markandey Katju, JJ.
Surjit Singh — Petitioner
versus
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 5354 of 2002
Decided on : 21-04-2008

IMPORTANT POINT
A wider meaning of Rule 2(pp) of the Telephone Rules 1951 covers the housewife who is economically dependent on her husband.