Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules only empowers disconnection of a person's telephone if his other telephone falls in arrears, and does not allow disconnection for the default of another person regardless of their relation.

B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) (AT the Admission Stage) this Wri t Petition arises under Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Petitioner is a firm comprising of father and son. The firm applied for telephone in the year 1984and the same was sanctioned and installed as telephone No. 64877 initially, and later on, it was re-numbered as 474877. In so far as this petitioner-firm is concern ed no arrears a re there. Smt. Mahalakshmi, who is the wife of one of the partners i. e. , father,also has got independent telephone bearing No. 479093 and that was installed only in the year 1994. With regard to the above installation of telephone in the name of the petitioner-firm in the year 1984 and that of smt. Mahalakshmi in the year 1994 is not disputed in the counter. It is stated that smt. Mahalakshmi fell in huge arrears of over 8 lakhs on account of user of the above telephone No. 479093. May be that both these telephones are installed in the same house, but there is no reason to say that merely because she is the wife of one of the partners of the petitioner-firm, the petitioner s telephone can be disconnected not on account of any default by the petitioner-firm but on account of the default of Smt. Maha Lakshmi. But, what has been done by the respondents in this case is that they have disconnected the telephone of the petitioner-firm on account of the default committed by Smt. Mahalakshmi pertaining to her telephone No. 479093.

( 2 ) RULE 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules are quoted by Smt. A. Chayadevi, learned Counsel for the respondents, in support of her contention and in support of the action taken by the respondents. But, the said Rule only empowers the authorities to disconnect a person s telephone if his other telephone falls in arrears. The rule does not empower to disconnect the telephone of one person for the default of another person regard less of relation of the said two persons. I have already dealt with this legal aspect in Y. Pridhvikmnar vs. General Manager, Telecom District, Hyderabad.

( 3 ) BUT, Smt. A Chayadevi, submits that there are two other decisions of the madras High Court - one rendered in the case of K. Amanullah vs. Madras telephones and the other in the case of Zarina Begum vs. General Manager, Madras telephones, in support of her contention; but, the above two decisions cited before me have got no bearing on the fact of this case. In K. Amanuliah s case, father obtained telephone connection (temporary) and then fell in arrears, on account of which the said telephone was disconnected. Suppressing the same, he has set up his son to obtain another telephone connection and on coming to the same, the said telephone connection, which was installed in the name of his son without knowing to the earlier facts, was disconnected. The same was upheld by the Madras High Court.

( 4 ) IN Zarina Begum s case the husband fell in arrears with regard to his telephone and without paying the same he has set up his wife to seek for installation of another telephone in her name, but the same was not gran ted for the reason that she was set up by her husband. These two cases do not hold smt. Chayadevi to support her contention.

( 5 ) IN the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to forthwith restore telephone connection to the petitioner, provided the petitioner is not in arrears as on the date of the disconnection. It is needless to mention that the respondents shall have right to take all such steps, including coersive steps, against Smt. Mahalakshmi to realise the arrears pertaining to her telephone.

( 6 ) SUBJECT to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No Costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document