Back
1996 Supreme(Ker) 207
Judges : K.P.DANDAPANI
Abraham - Appellant
Versus
Telecom District Manager - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 7450 of 1990
Decided On : 06/20/1996
Advocates Appeared :
C.P. Sudhakara Prasad For Petitioner George C.P. Tharakan (SCGSC) For Respondents
The court established that the Telecom Department does not have the power to disconnect a subscriber's telephone for the default of a relative, as per Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules and constitutional principles.
Headnote:
Telecom District Manager - Power to Disconnect Telephone - Telegraph Rules - Rule 443
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's telephone was disconnected by the Telecom District Manager due to outstanding dues on a telephone subscribed by his daughter-in-law in a different location. The petitioner objected to the disconnection, leading to a legal dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disconnection of the petitioner's telephone for the dues of a relative was arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The court quashed the disconnection order and declared the petitioner's telephones not liable for disconnection due to the dues of the relative's telephone.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Telecom Department has the power to disconnect the telephone of a subscriber for the default of a relative.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, which only empowers disconnection of the telephone of the subscriber. The court also considered precedents from other High Courts and held that disconnection of a relative's telephone for the subscriber's dues would be arbitrary and unreasonable.
Final Decision: The original petition was allowed, and the petitioner's telephones were declared not liable to be disconnected for the dues of the relative's telephone.
K.P. Dandapani, J.
The short question which calls for consideration of this Court in this original petition is whether the Telecom District Manager has power to disconnect the telephone of a subscriber on the ground of default on the part of his relative.
2. The facts are not disputed. Petitioner is a subscriber to telephone Nos. 23 and 52 of Valakam Telephone Exchange, coming within the jurisdiction of respondents 1 and 2 herein. The first number is installed at his residence and the second at his business premises. Admittedly, petitioner is not a defaulter in respect of either of these telephones. However, his daughter-in-law one Annamma Thomas was having a telephone connection as telephone No. 471771 at Madras when she was staying there in the year, 1987. According to the petitioner, that connection itself was disconnected after a period of six months. There seems to be arrears to the tune of Rs. 24,979/- in respect of that telephone. Ext. P3 order dated 23.6.1990 passed by the second respondent, the Accounts Officer (TR), Office of the Telecom District Manager Kollam was issued to the petitioner. The contents of Ext. P3 is usefully quoted as follows:
"INDIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT regg.a/d.
From
Accounts Officer (TR),
O/o. TDM. Kollam.
Sri. T. Abraham,
Palakkal House, Nr. Andoor Church, Valakom.
No. TRA.I/GC-II/95/87-90/173 Did.. 23.6.1990
Sir, Sub:- Realisation of outstanding dues in r/o closed phone No. Madras 471771.
You have not so far paid Rs. 24,979/- outstanding against the closed Madras No. 471771 despite various notices issued from this Office. That the above-mentioned phone was in the possession of your son Sri. Thomas Abraham is known to you.
Therefore, you are hereby requested to clear the dues by 5.7.1990 failing which phone Nos. Valakom 23 & 52 will be disconnected without any further notice. Soliciting kind co-operation.
Yours faithfully, Sd/
Accounts Officer (TR), Kollam."
Petitioner objected to Ext. P3, but in spite of his objection, the Telephone Nos. 23 and 52 were disconnected on 3.8.1990.
3. This Court, on admitting the original petition, as per its order dt. 24.8.1990 in C.M.P. No. 1320/1990 issued a direction to the respondent to reconnect both the telephones. In obedience to the said order, petitioner submitted that, both the telephones have been reconnected.
4. The Accounts Officer has filed a counter affidavit justifying his action. According to him, petitioner's son Thomas Abraham had a temporary connection -telephone No. 471771 at Madras and afterwards a casual connection was given to his wife Annamma Thomas. An amount of Rs. 24,979/- was outstanding towards the said telephone bills. The defaulter left to Madras without any trace. It is alleged that in spite of their repeated requests, petitioner had not disclosed the present whereabouts of his son and daughter-in-law. It is admitted in Paragraph 7 of the counter that "The telephones are disconnected for the dues of the petitioner's son and daughter in law". According to the Department, the defaulter is not just a "different subscriber" from the petitioner, but they are the son and daughter-in-law of the petitioner and therefore, the father is liable for the dues of his son. As otherwise, it is quite possible that every individual in a family will get telephone connection in their separate names and try to ward off the legitimate dues to the telephone department, which is a public utility department and cannot be made to suffer by the ingenuity of the subscriber to defraud the public exchequer.
5. The question, therefore, to be considered is whether the Telecom Department i s empowered to disconnect the telephone of a subscriber on the ground of default on the part of his relative.
6. I may now refer to the relevant rules contained in the Telegraph Rules. Rule 420 deals with the disconnection when a subscriber is adjudged as an insolvent or makes or enters into any composition or arrangement with his creditors or suffers execution to be levied
