Action of department held arbitrary.

1. The petitioners have approached this Court to issue writ of declaration that the disconnection of their telephone Nos.4868323, 4863499 and 4869499 respectively is arbitrary and illegal.

2. According to the petitioner in W.P.No.658 of 2002, he is a subscriber since 1.2.1985 having a telephone connection bearing No.4868323, coming under Valasaravakkam Exchange under the administrative control of the respondents. He has been paying the periodical bi-monthly bills regularly and promptly, to the respondents within the due dates and thus maintaining the above telephone perfectly. While so, on 6.12.2001, the said telephone number was disconnected by the respondents. On verification with the respondents, it was known that his telephone was disconnected because of alleged non-payment of 5 bills, relating to the year 98-99 by other subscriber Miss Ramyah, having telephone No.4863499 who is none other than the daughter of the petitioner, whose telephone also was once installed in her bed room for her exclusive use. It is further stated that the petitioner is a social activist and his source of income and his daily activities are independent and are nothing to do with any other members of his family. After making representation to the respondents and in the absence of proper response, he issued legal notice on 13.12.2001 through his counsel to the second respondent calling upon him to restore the telephone immediately, otherwise he will face legal proceedings. The petitioner waited till 17.12.2001 and the respondents never cared to restore the connection, in spite of the receipt of the said legal notice.

There is no rule or provision under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Rules framed thereunder which gives such arbitrary authority to the respondents, to disconnect the telephone connection, without any notice, that too for the non-payment of bills of some other subscriber. In such circumstances, having no other effective remedy, has filed the present writ petition.

3. The other writ petition, viz., W.P.No.659 of 2002 is filed by the mother and W.P.No.660 of 2002 is filed by the sister of the defaulter. Since similar averments have been made in those writ petitions, it is unnecessary to refer the same once again.

4. On direction Mr.S.Muthusamy, appears for the respondents in all these three writ petitions.

5. The only point for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the respondents are empowered to disconnect the telephone for the default of another subscriber.

6. It is true that the subscriber Miss Ramyah having a telephone bearing No.4863599 failed to pay the telephone bills. It is also true that the respective petitioner in W.P.Nos.658, 659 and 660 of 2002 is father, mother and sister respectively and that they are having separate telephone in their names in the very same house. Admittedly, there is no statutory provision which enables the respondents to disconnect the telephone of the other subscribers. No doubt Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 empowers the authorities to disconnect any telephone on the grounds of non-payment of bill. Since the respondents very much relied on the said Rule, it is useful to refer the same:

“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 any 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 Auth