Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V. Manohar, & Mr. Justice M.C. Chaudhari
MADHAV VINAYAK RAJWADE—Petitioner
versus
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. & ANR.—Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1581 of 1985—Decided 4.11.1993
TELEPHONE BILLING - EXCESSIVE BILLING - INVESTIGATION - DISCONNECTION OF TELEPHONE - NATURAL JUSTICE - RULE 443 OF INDIAN TELEGRAPH RULES, 1951 - VALIDITY - ARBITRARINESS - UNREASONABLENESS - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE - APPLICATION - DISCONNECTION WITHOUT NOTICE - LEGALITY - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY - SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES - ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE - DOCTRINE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE - APPLICABILITY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY - EX-POST FACTO HEARING - TELEPHONE SERVICE - ESSENTIAL SERVICE - MONOPOLY - TERMS AND CONDITIONS - FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS - ARBITRARINESS - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885 - SECTION 7(D) - ARBITRATION - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired civil servant, challenged excessive telephone bills issued by the respondents for the period from 10.10.1984 to 10.8.1985. He alleged that the bills were incorrect and did not reflect the actual calls made by him or his family members. The petitioner also challenged the validity of Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, which allowed for disconnection of telephone service without notice for non-payment of bills.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation carried out by the respondents was inadequate and did not ascertain the source of the excessive billing. The court also held that Rule 443 was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principles of natural justice, as it allowed for disconnection of telephone service without notice, even in cases where there was a genuine dispute regarding the bill.
Issues: 1. Whether the investigation carried out by the respondents was adequate and proper? 2. Whether Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principles of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the investigation carried out by the respondents was inadequate and did not ascertain the source of the excessive billing. The court observed that the respondents had merely kept the petitioner's telephone under observation for six days and had not taken any steps to verify the disputed calls or to identify the source of the mischief. 2. The court held that Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principles of natural justice. The court observed that the rule allowed for disconnection of telephone service without notice, even in cases where there was a genuine dispute regarding the bill. The court held that this was a drastic power that should not be exercised lightly and that it was necessary to give subscribers a reasonable opportunity to pay the bill or to contest the dispute before disconnecting their service.
Final Decision: The court set aside the action of the respondents in holding the petitioner liable for all the calls recorded on the telephone meter and directed them to charge the petitioner an amount on the basis of an average for the previous six bi-monthly periods excluding the disputed bills plus 10% of the average so arrived at. The court also held that Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principles of natural justice, but left the question of its validity open as it was under challenge before the Supreme Court.
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J. — The petitioner is a retired civil servant. He joined Government service in 1942. He worked with the Government of Maharashtra till 1974. Thereafter, the petitioner worked with the United Nations from May, 1974 upto March 1980. He returned to India in April, 1980 and thereafter he is residing at Bombay at 5, Lalit, Wodehouse Road, Bombay-400039. The family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife, his daughter, son-in-law and niece. No other person resides at the said premises. The petitioner has a telephone at the said premises. Originally, the number of the telephone was 241605. It is now changed to 2021615. According to the petitioner, apart from his four family members no other person uses the said telephone.
2. At all times material to this petition, the telephone had an S.T.D. facility. After the return of the petitioner to India, the telephone calls metered at the said telephone for the bi-monthly period for which the telephone bills are issued by the respondents, did not exceed 951 calls for any of the bi-monthly periods during the period 1.7.1981 to 14.6.1982. For the bi-monthly period of 14.6.1982 to 14.8.1982, the telephone calls which were metered amounted to 1065. Thereafter, for the next three bi-monthly periods, lesser number of calls were metered.
3. According to the petitioner, in his telephone bill dated 1.5.1993 which pertains to the bi-monthly period of 14.2.1983 to 14.4.1983, there was a spurt in the telephone calls metered. The number of telephone calls recorded for this period was 1525. He, however, did not lodge any complaint because in the next bi-monthly period, the metered calls were again reduced to 620. Since then, for, the bi-monthly period of 14.6.1983 to 14.8.1983 there was again an increase in the calls to 1241. For the next two bimonthly periods, however, the calls metered were again reduced to 557 and 393.
4. However, from 14.12.1983 onwards, consistently high calls are being recorded on the petitioner’s meter. From 393 calls in the month of 14.11.1983 to 14.12.1983, the calls increased to 1966, for the bi-monthly period 14.12.1983 to 14.2.1984. The number of calls metered, thus more than doubled. The same high increase has persisted upto 10.10.1984. Ultimately, even from this high figure, there was a further spurt for the period 10.10.84 to 10.12.84 when as many as 9801 telephone calls were recorded. During this period, however, the petitioner was busy attending to his 97 years’ old ailing mother who died on 23.3.1985. He was, therefore, required to be out of Bombay. He, however, on receipt of the bill for the period 10.10.84 to 10.12.84 in January 1985, lodged a strong protest by his letter dated 7.1.1985 with the Respondents and asked for an investigation into the calls metered on this telephone. The petitioner received a communication from the 1st Respondent dated 15.1.1985 splitting up his bill for the said period. The bill for Rs. 4720.50 was split into two bills, one for Rs. 842.50 being to the extent of maximum calls numbering 1607 recorded during the previous 3 preceding quarters and Rs. 3877.70 for the remaining 7994 calls. He paid the sum of Rs. 842.50 and asked for a proper investigation.
5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also received a bill for the period 10.12.1984 to 10.2.1985 which showed metered calls at 4167, the amount of the bill being Rs. 2003.50. He received another bill for the period 10.2.1985 to 10.4.1985 showing metered calls as 4220, the amount of the bill being Rs. 2053/-. He received the third bill for the period 10.4.1985 to 10.6.1985 showing metered calls as 7181, the amount being Rs. 3510.50 and a bill for the period 10.6.85 to 10.8.85 showing metered calls as 1844 and the amount being Rs. 1031.50. According to the petitioner, all these bills are excessive and do not correctly show the calls actually made by him or his family members from his said telephone. To avoid dispute, however, he has paid out of the above bills, tw
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
