Back
2000 Supreme(Ker) 104
Judges : S.SANKARASUBBAN
Bulkies - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 29572 of 1999
Decided On : 02/22/2000
Advocates Appeared :
M. Ramesh Chander & M. Vijayakumar For Petitioner Raj it (A.C.G.S.C.) For Respondents
Headnote:
Telegraph Rules 1951, Rule443 & 2(pp) - Husband - Disconnected - Obligations - Petitioner is a subscriber of telephone She has been regularly paying bills for telephone - Petitioner received notice directing her to pay on or before failing which it was stated that the petitioner's telephone will be disconnected is dated petitioner's telephone number is shown as - According to the petitioner there is no default on her part telephone belonged to her husband was disconnected due to non-payment of rent - For that purpose telephone of the petitioner cannot be disconnected counsel for petitioner relied on the decision of this Court reported in Abraham v. Telecom District Manager -Held, counter affidavit has been filed by Department, wherein it is admitted that the present telephone belongs to her husband and amounts are due from him for the telephone of which he is subscriber - Learned Central Government Standing Counsel has referred to decision of the Madras High Court Indian Telegraph deals with disconnection of telephones due to Departmental reasons such as shift prolonged husband and wife may be treated as a single unit for certain purpose - Telephone Department is concerned it has to look into question only who is the subscriber telephone stands in name of person he entitled to have continued service from Department with regard to that telephone when that subscriber has discharged all obligations with regard to that telephone - Petition allowed
S. Sankarasubban, J.
Petitioner is a subscriber of telephone No. 650223. She has been regularly paying bills for the telephone. Petitioner received Ext. P2 notice directing her to pay Rs. 4,449/- on or before 23.11.1999, failing which, it was stated that the petitioner's telephone will be disconnected. Ext. P2 is dated 15.11.1999. In Ext. P2, the petitioner's telephone number is shown as 450223 instead of 650223. According to the petitioner, there is no default on her part. The telephone belonged to her husband was disconnected due to non-payment of rent. For that purpose, the telephone of the petitioner cannot be disconnected. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court reported in Abraham v. Telecom District Manager, 1996(2) KLT 241.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Department, wherein it is admitted that the present telephone belongs to her husband and amounts are due from him for the telephone of which he is the subscriber. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel has referred to a decision of the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 5963 of 1987. R.421 of the Indian Telegraph deals with disconnection of telephones due to Departmental reasons such as shift, prolonged fault, etc. The husband and wife may be treated as a single unit for certain purpose. But so far as the Telephone Department is concerned, it has to look into the question only who is the subscriber. In so far as the telephone stands in the name of a person, he is entitled to have the continued service from the Department with regard to that telephone, when that subscriber has discharged all the obligations with regard to that telephone.
3. Hence, I am of the view that the Department was not right in disconnecting the petitioner's telephone for the amount due from her husband's telephone. Original Petition is allowed. There will be a direction to reconnect telephone No. 650223 to the petitioner forthwith.
