P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, R. A. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks a direction to quash and set aside the notice of disconnection of the petitioners telephone No. 445764 ant also wants that Rules 421 and 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 be struck down as violative of the principle of natural justice.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a partner of M/s. Sukan Chemicals. That partnership firm is a subscriber of other telephones namely 830532 and 830533 In respect of both these telephones unpaid outstanding dues are Rs. 69335. 00 as per telephone bills dated 1-11-1988 and 1-1-1989. Since these amounts were not paid in spite of sufficient time having been granted to make the payment both these telephones of the firm were disconnected on 12-12-1988.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER a notice was issued to the firm on 6-1-1989. A similar notice dated 16-1-1989 was addressed to the petitioner partner by name and therein it was stated that for the non-payment of the telephone dues of the firm the personal telephone of the petitioner is also liable to disconnection if the dues of the telephones of the partnership firm were not paid. This was replied by the petitioner on 27 and it was stated that the factory was not working since November 1989 as one of its main partner Dr. S. P. Shah had expired in the air crash on 19-10-1988 and there were stringent financial difficulties. It was also stated that negotiations with a few parties for arranging necessary finance were going on and were hopeful of restarting the factory within a fortnight and therefore request was made to grant suitable instalments to make payment of the bills. It was stated that payment could be started from March 1989 and shall repay the full amount in four equal instalments and request was made not to take any other action during this period.

( 4 ) THE Telephone Department replied by its letter dated 1-2-1989 stating that looking to the circumstances stated by the petitioner and also simultaneously keeping in view the Government revenue it was directed that before 15-2-1989 a sum of Rs. 46 977 be paid and the balance amount of Rs. 22 359 be paid before 28-2-1989 failing which other telephone facility would be withdrawn without any notice.

( 5 ) TILL today admittedly the payment is not made.

( 6 ) THE petitioner contends that his personal telephone in his individual capacity cannot be disconnected because of non-payment of the telephone bills of the partnership firm in which he is a partner According to him the petitioner is a subscriber of the telephone as an individual and the partnership firm is altogether an independent and different subscriber and default in one capacity cannot result into the of telephone in another Capacity. Rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules reads as under:443 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 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. Thus if the dues of 8 telephone are not paid by the subscriber any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him be disconne- cted without notice. However the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there are two different subscribers; the petitioner is a subscriber in his individual c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document