( 1 ) IT appears that the father and sons are staying in the same premises and are carrying on same work. Telephone connections have been taken in the name of the father as also in the names of the sons. The telephone in the name of the father went into arrears of over Rs. 10,000. 00. The amount not having been paid the telephone was dis-connected. There- after, the telephones of the sons were also disconnected on the ground that arrears had not been paid. A request in writing was made by the father asking for reconnection of one telephone atleast on the ground that they will be able to carry on their work smoothly and that he was sick also and wanted medical attention. On this request the telephone was reconnected. He had also stated that he would settle the claim of the department. Inspite of that no claim was settled. The telephones were disconnected and this petition has been filed to challenge the same. The contention of the learned counsel is that the father and sons are, independent and they have never been in common. He further submits that the telephones in the names of the sons could not be disconnected for default of the father. In fact, the petitioner had completely suppressed these facts in the petition. There is no averment that the telephones had earlier been disconnected and on request of the father one telephone was reconnected when an assurance had been given that the bills would be settled. These facts have been brought out in the Counter affidavit. Since the father and sons are working together the department is authorised to disconnect the telephones under Section 443 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The petition has no merits and is dismissed.

ARTICLE Suishta Saigal B-79, Defence Colony New Delhi-24 Object Can a telephone of a person be disconnected for recovery of rent from a relative. A land mark judgment adjudicated upon by Delhi High Court has thrown up many questions, in a thinly litigated area-telephones. In the case of Madan Lal Tayal, Prem Kumar Tayal v. MTNL- a tele- phone in the name of the father had an unpaid bill amounting to Rs. 4105. 00. The phone was disconnected. On the request of the father-Madan Lal Tayal and his assurance to pay the bill the connection was restored. Another bill amounting to Rs. 6322. 00 remained unpaid. Therefore, the phone was again disconnected. Both the bills remained unpaid. Thereafter MTNL disconnected phones in the name of the two sons of Madan Lal. Phone connection of one son was restored. The plaintiff has come up in a writ petition under Article 226 against the order of MTNL. While dismissing the writ petition the court held that Rule 443 of Indian Telegraph act could be extended so as to apply to the sons and thus their phones could be disconnected on account of non-payment of bills by the father. Rule 443. "on or before any due date for payment of rental or other charges due, the subscriber fails to make the payment, then any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him may be disconnected without notice". That is, the telephone department has been expressly granted power by the legislature to disconnect not only the phone with regard to which default in payment is made but any or all phones belonging to that subscriber But the High Court has extended the operation of Rule 443 to include in its ambit not only the immediate defaulting subscriber but also any immediate relation of the subscriber.

THE two questions that arise for consideration are : Is the act of MTNL arbitrary and against all tenants of Natural Justice so as to be violative of Article 14- I. I Freedom of trade and business is restricted and is therefore, viola- tive of Article 19 (i) (g ).

( 2 ) AS regards the first, the act of disconnection is not a direct restriction on the freedom of the subscriber to carry on trade. Phone is disconnected to collect dues and any restrictions on trade are incidental to this aim. Also this restric- tion, if any exists because of the f