Back
Allahbad High Court
A.K.KIRTY
Raghubar Dayal Kanodia - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Decided On : 01/10/1969
TELEGRAPH ACT - SECTION 7-B - RULE 443 - DISCONNECTION OF TELEPHONE - DISPUTE RESOLUTION - ARBITRATION - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - COURT'S JURISDICTION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - SCOPE AND LIMITS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, businessmen with telephone connections in their business premises, received revised bills demanding significantly higher amounts for local calls. They objected, claiming the bills were incorrect and protested against the subsequent disconnection notices. They filed writ petitions challenging the disconnection orders and seeking a mandamus to prevent disconnection.
Finding of the Court:
1. The court noted the existence of a special register maintained by the Telephone Authorities, which recorded frequent meter readings of certain subscribers, including the petitioners, following reports of misuse. 2. The court observed that the revised bills appeared to be in conformity with the figures noted in the special register. 3. The court declined to determine the authenticity or accuracy of the special register, as it was not in a position to investigate or make findings based on the affidavits filed. 4. The court held that disconnection of a telephone is not a punishment and that the Telephone Authorities have the right to disconnect in case of nonpayment of bills, as per Rule 443 of the Telegraph Rules. 5. The court found that Rule 443 was not ultra vires or illegal, as it was made under the rule-making power granted to the Central Government under the Telegraph Act and did not contravene any provision of the Act. 6. The court held that the dispute raised by the petitioners did not fall within the ambit of Section 7-B(1) of the Telegraph Act, which provides for arbitration in disputes concerning telegraph lines, appliances, or apparatus. 7. The court concluded that Section 7-B(1) did not bar the filing of writ petitions or the grant of relief to the petitioners but that the petitioners should seek relief in an appropriate court of law, as the Telegraph Act did not contain any statutory bar to filing suits or seeking redress from a competent court.
Issues: 1. Whether the revised bills sent to the petitioners were correct and justified. 2. Whether the disconnection of the petitioners' telephones was lawful and justified. 3. Whether Rule 443 of the Telegraph Rules, allowing disconnection for nonpayment of bills, was ultra vires or illegal. 4. Whether the dispute between the petitioners and the Telephone Authorities fell within the ambit of Section 7-B(1) of the Telegraph Act, which provides for arbitration in disputes concerning telegraph lines, appliances, or apparatus. 5. Whether the petitioners could seek relief through writ petitions or whether they were required to pursue an alternative remedy, such as arbitration or a suit in a competent court.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that it could not determine the correctness or authenticity of the special register maintained by the Telephone Authorities, as it was not in a position to investigate or make findings based on the affidavits filed. 2. The court found that Rule 443 of the Telegraph Rules, allowing disconnection for nonpayment of bills, was not ultra vires or illegal, as it was made under the rule-making power granted to the Central Government under the Telegraph Act and did not contravene any provision of the Act. 3. The court held that the dispute raised by the petitioners did not fall within the ambit of Section 7-B(1) of the Telegraph Act, which provides for arbitration in disputes concerning telegraph lines, appliances, or apparatus, as the dispute centered around the actual readings of the meters and the honesty and accuracy of the readings taken and recorded. 4. The court concluded that Section 7-B(1) did not bar the filing of writ petitions or the grant of relief to the petitioners but that the petitioners should seek relief in an appropriate court of law, as the Telegraph Act did not contain any statutory bar to filing suits or seeking redress from a competent court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that the petitioners had not established a basis for relief on the basis of the affidavits and materials placed on record. However, the court directed that each party bear its own costs.
2. Both the petitioners in the instant Writ petitions are businessmen having telephone connections in their business premises. A bill for the fixed rental for the period from 1-4-1967 to 30-6-1967 and local calls for the period from 1-12-1966 to 28-2-1967 was given to and received by the petitioner of each case in March, 1967. The amount demanded under the bill in the case of R. D. Kanodia petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3159 of 1967, was Rs. 657.30 Paise. The number of local calls shown in the bill during the relevant period was 4292. In the case of R. C. Gupta, petitioner in writ petition No. 3164 of 1967, the amount demanded under the bill was Rs. 122.85 Paise and the number of local calls noted in the bill for the period was 729. It is admitted that both these bills were duly paid by the petitioners. Subsequently, however, a further bill was submitted to each of the petitioners in July, 1967 demanding a further sum of Rs. 4,500 in case of Kanodia and a further sum of Rs. 5,000 in case of Gupta which amounts were required to be paid by the party concerned within fifteen days of the date of issue of each bill.
In Kanodia's case, it was mentioned in the bill that as against the total local calls for the period in question amounting to 34292, in the original bills, the figure was by mistake shown as 4292. Similarly in the case of Gupta, it was noted in the subsequent bill that as against the correct figure of local calls numbering 20729, the figure of 729 was incorrectly mentioned in the original bill. Each petitioner, thereupon, wrote letters to the Telephone Authorities concerned asking them to furnish details of the meter readings during the relevant period. The figures of Meter readings supplied to Kanodia are mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 7 of his writ petition and the figures supplied to Gupta are mentioned in paragraph 6 of his petition. The petitioners wrote to the Authorities protesting against the subsequent bill sent to each of them and contended that the subsequent bills were wrong and on no calculation the number of local calls could be of the magnitude as shown in the subsequent bills.
The Authorities concerned, however, according to the petitioners, paid no heed to their protests and objections and intimated that the respective telephones of the petitioners would be disconnected unless the amount demanded was paid. Thereafter the present two Writ petitions were filed in this Court.
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed in each case on behalf of the respondents. In the counter-affidavits it has, inter alia, been alleged that the meter works automatically and works under the system known as 'time and zone'. It has been explained as to how this system works and it has been stated that Kanpur has been provided with a direct dialling system for trunk connections and that whenever a subscriber dials, for example Delhi, the meter starts working as soon as the subscriber gets an effective connection. Thereafter th
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
