Appellant 1 is the Union of India, and appellant 2 is the General Manager (Telephones), Ahmedabad. They are the original defendants in Civil Suit No. 608 of 1984 filed by the present respondent in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.

2. Present respondent Narayannbhai Keshavlal Patel is the subscriber of two telephone connections, viz. Nos. 67869 at his residence and 68223 at his shop. He received a notice D/-6-2-1984 under Rule 421 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') from the respondents, intimating him that both his telephones would be disconnected on the expiry of seven days. The said notice did not contain any reason for the alleged disconnection.

3. On receipt of the said notice, the respondent-plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit. Along with the said suit, he also took out a Notice of Motion for an injunction to restrain the defendants from disconnecting the said telephones. The notice regarding the hearing of the said Notice of Motion was served on the defendants. Before the notice of motion was heard, both the telephones were disconnected and, therefore, the plaintiff prayed for a mandatory injunction to direct defendant 1 Telephone Engineer, Phones, to reconnect both the telephones. It appears that no affidavit was filed by the defendants. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court after hearing both the parties, by his order D/- 6-4-1984 directed the defendants to reconnect both the aforesaid telephones within three days of his order. I am told at the Bar that thereafter the period for reconnection was extended up to 16-4-1984. In the meantime, the defendants filed the present appeal from order in this Court on 13-4-1984, and obtained ad interim relief in terms of para 8-A of Civil Application No. 1697 of 1984.

4. The respondent-plaintiff thereafter made an application to vacate the ad interim stay granted by this Court, and, therefore, this Court passed an order to hear the matter finally on 30-4-1984, and that is how this appeal has come before me.

5. Since action has been taken under the provisions of R.421 of the Rules, it is necessary to reproduce the said rule. It reads :

"421. Disconnection of telephones.-

Where the Divisional Engineer is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it necessary to do so, he may, after giving the subscriber a notice in writing for a period which shall not except in emergent cases be less than 7 days, disconnect the telephone, and in such case the subscriber shall be entitled to refund of rent for the unexpired portion of the period for which the connection or service was given."

A mere reading of the aforesaid rule shows that it is obligatory on the Department to serve notice at least of 7 days, unless there is emergency, before the telephone can be disconnected.

6. Now, when a notice is required to be given to the subscriber under the statutory provision, such notice is to be a notice to show-cause, and unless a subscriber is given the reasons for disconnection, it would not be possible for him to show-cause or to understand why his telephone is being disconnected. Unfortunately, in the instant case not only that in the notice served on the plaintiff the Department has shown any reasons for disconnection, but before the learned trial Judge also no affidavit was filed by the Department showing the reasons for such disconnection.

7. Mr. S.D. Shah, learned Advocate for the appellants-defendants, has contended before me that what is required under the provisions of R.421 of the Rules is recording of the reasons by the Divisional Engineer, and not communicating the same to the subscriber and, therefore, either it was not necessary for the Department either to disclose the reasons in the notice or to disclose the same before the Court by filing an affidavit.

8. Before considering this argument of Mr. Shah 1 would like to observe that it should not be forgotten that in this country it is only the Government which has the monopoly to provid