Back
Bombay High Court
COUTO,KAMAT
Rao and Co., Panaji - Appellant
Versus
Accounts Officer, D.E.T.Office, Panaji - Respondent
Decided On : 07/09/1985
TELEPHONE CONNECTION - DISCONNECTION - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - INDIAN TELEGRAPH RULES, 1951, RULE 421 - INTERPRETATION - REBATE - ENTITLEMENT - CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING REBATE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a partnership firm, challenged the disconnection of its telephone by the respondents for non-payment of a bill of Rs. 3536/-. The petitioner disputed the bill, claiming that the number of local calls recorded was excessive and that the S.T.D. facility had been removed from the telephone in 1978. The respondents contended that the petitioner had clandestinely used the telephone for S.T.D. calls.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not required to be issued a show cause notice before the telephone was disconnected, as the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, Rule 421, did not require such a notice. However, the court found that the petitioner was entitled to a rebate on the bill, as the average number of local calls for a period of two months was only 500, and the bill claimed payment for 8100 local calls. The court also found that the allegation of clandestine use of the telephone for S.T.D. calls was not substantiated.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was required to be issued a show cause notice before the telephone was disconnected. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a rebate on the bill.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 421 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, does not require a show cause notice to be issued before disconnecting a telephone. 2. A subscriber is entitled to a rebate on a telephone bill if the number of calls recorded is excessive and the subscriber has not clandestinely used the telephone for S.T.D. calls.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed. The demand note sent along with the letter dated 20th October 1984 was quashed. The petitioner was entitled to the money deposited in the court. There was no order for costs.
KAMAT, J.:-This petition challenges the action of the respondents of disconnecting the telephone on 6th Nov. 1984 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to pay a sum of Rs. 3536/- pursuant to the demand note sent by the respondent 1.
2. Petitioner, a partnership firm, is carrying on business of exhibiting cinemas in the name and style of Cine Theatre National and is a subscriber of a telephone which bears No. 3854. On 1st Jan., 1984 a bill was sent to the petitioner for a period covering from 15th Oct., 1983 to 15th Dec., 1983 claiming a sum of Rs. 3885/50. On this bill Rs. 125/- is shown to be the fixed rental for the period of two months, trunk call charges of Rs. 100/50 and the balance amount of Rs. 3660/- for 8100 local calls.
3. The petitioner very strongly disputed this bill and contended in his representation-cum-complaint that considering the past averages and the actual number of calls made on that telephone there could not be any case for 8100 calls during the period from 15th Oct. 1983 to 15th Dec., 1983. It must be stated in fairness to the department that the respondents at once acted upon this representation, split up the bill and directed the petitioner to pay presently only a sum of Rs. 349/50 and showed the amount of Rs. 3536/- as being disputed. By a letter dt. 20th Oct., 1984 the first respondent informed the petitioner that on looking into the complaint regarding excess bill, the findings are that there is no mistake either with the technical working of the meter or with the meter reading statement. It was also pointed out that no fault was found which had contributed to the recording of excess calls. But, however, it is next pointed out that local calls in respect of S.T.D. calls to long distance stations have been recorded in the said bill dt. 1st Jan., 1984 and as those calls are included therein the bill is rightly made out for a total number of calls of 8100. This being the position the respondent 1, therefore, wrote to the petitioner that there is no question of giving any rebate as the same is not justified and, therefore, the petitioner was called upon to pay the sum of Rs. 3536/- on or before 29th Oct., 1984, and, however, the petitioner was further warned that this payment is to be made by that date to avoid disconnection. The demand note was annexed to that letter of 20th Oct., 1984 and as the petitioner did not comply with that demand note, it is common ground that on 6th Nov. 1984 the telephone was disconnected.
4. When this petition came up before the Court for admission, the petitioner was, however, directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3536/- and reconnection charges of Rs. 50/- and on such deposit, the respondents 1 and 2 were directed to restore the connection of the telephone to the petitioner. This order of 19th Nov. 1984 has been complied with by both the parties.
5. Insofar as this petition is concerned the main challenge that is thrown is that in spite of the letter dt. 20th Oct. 1984, which called upon the petitioner to pay the money on that demand note on or before 29th Oct., 1984, the petitioner ought to have been given a show cause notice before the telephone was actually disconnected. For this purpose the petitioner relies on R. 421 of the Indian Telegraph Rules 1981.* Mr. K.U. Aras, learned counsel for the petitioner, interprets this rule to mean that before disconnecting any telephone on any ground, it is incumbent on the department to issue a show cause notice.
* [It seems the year of the Rules should be 1951…..Ed.]
6. We have, however, gone through this petition as also the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Mr. V.G.Godbole, Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, who is heading the department in Goa, has filed an affidavit opposing this petition.
7. We are satisfied that we need not decide this petition on the question whether the petitioner is required to be issued show cause notice or that we are required to interpret R.421 of the Indian Telegraph Rules 1981,* as we
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
