P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. — In this petition, the petitioner who is running a lodging house has prayed for quashing the order dated 20th February, 1992, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-H, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs 12,114/- towards the arrears of telephone bill in respect of STD PT 27198 and also the demand note dated 21st Feb. 1992 issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount referred to in bill, Annex-H.

2. Sri Ram Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner is not a subscriber in respect of telephone STD PT 27198 and one Sri. Aslam is admittedly the subscriber to the said telephone. Therefore, he submitted that it is not permissible for the respondents to call upon the petitioner to pay the amount referred to in bill order Annexures G. and H, and in the event of failing to pay the amount demanded in the said bill to disconnect the telephone of the petitioner. He submitted Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 (hereinafter the Rules) which provides for disconnection of telephone for the default of a subscriber to pay arrears of the telephone bill, does not empower the respondents to disconnect telephone of the petitioner for the liability or the arrears of amount due by the said Aslam in respect of telephone bearing No. STD PT 27198. In support of his connections, Sri. Ram Bhat brought to my notice the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. B.V. Manek v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., reported in (AIR 1996 Bombay 53) and also the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Santokh Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Shillong (AIR 1990 Gau. 47). However, Sri Ashok Harnahalli, Learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents submitted that the telephone No. 27198 was connected to the PBX Telephone No. 28078 in respect of which the petitioner is a subscriber and therefore, it is a clear case of misuse of telephone No. STD PT 27198, and therefore the authorities were fully justified in calling upon the petitioner to make the payment as claimed in bail/demand note annexures G and H and notifying the petitioner that in the event of failure to pay the amount demanded, the respondents would disconnect the telephone of the petitioner.

3. In view of the rival contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, the short question which would fall for my consideration is as to whether the respondents are entitled to call upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of amount due in respect of the telephone No. STD PT 27198 in respect of which admittedly one Aslam is the subscriber; and in the event of refusing to make the said payment, whether the respondents are entitled to disconnect the telephone of the petitioner.

4. Before I consider the question which would arise for my consideration, it is relevant to extract Rule 443 of the Rules which reads as follows.

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 (Local and Trunk) or 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 (during which the telephone or telex remains disconnected) 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.

5. On a plain reading of Rule 443 of Rules, it is clear that the said ru