Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. D. Mulye and V. D. Gyani, JJ.
KUMAR KESHRIDAS, INDORE - Appellant
Versus
DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELEPHONES (ADMN.), INDORE - Respondents
M. P. 644 Of 1982
Decided On : 09/10/1984
When Rule 420 is referred a mere reference to the rule will be no substitute for the facts which would give notice to any subscriber so as to enable him to show cause against the proposed action, either of disconnection or stoppage of telephone connection. Such a notice is not an empty formality and what is expected of the authority is to give a meaningful opportunity to the subscriber and mere reference to the rule without specifying the facts, which lead to the authority concerned to take an action, such a disconnection of telephone or stoppage of telephone service. [Para 12
(2) Natural Justice-rules of-action proposed to be taken-inspection report relied on-must be given to the telephone subscriber to enable him to reply.
Natural justice demands posting of facts and opportunity to meet those facts.
Where reliance is placed on the inspector's report it should be referred. Unless this is done how can it be expected in such circumstances for any subscriber to meet the case as contained in those inspection reports. It should not be left to the exercise of right to make a demand for the documents. The endeavour of the authority should be that there is no occasion for making such a demand and if such an occasion arise, the authority should be prompt enough in supplying the necessary documents before the subscriber is called upon to show cause against the proposed action. [Para 12
(3) Natural Justice-requirements of-satisfaction for passing an order should be of the authority itself-it cannot be delegated.
It is an essential requirement of principles of natural justice that opportunity of hearing as contemplated by such principle is by the authority who is supposed to pass the order and this authority is such which cannot be normally delegated, even if provided under the rules, It would not satisfy the requirement of natural justice unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the authority passing the order had considered all the relevant material and such consideration is borne out by the order itself. AIR 1980 SC 1157 & AIR 1980 SC 2117reliedon. AIR 1959 SC 308, AIR 1976 SC 789; & AIR 1979 SC 789, differentiated. [Para 14, 15 & 16
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari/mandamus, quashing the order dated 15-9-1982 (Annexure B), passed by the Divisional Engineer Telephones, Indore and the show-cause notice dated 26-3-1982 (Annexure A ). The petitioner has also prayed for restoration of his telephone service, which has been disconnected by the respondents.
( 2 ) THE undisputed facts are that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm having its registered office at 8, Subhash Marg, Indore. The firm carries on business in manufacturing, sale and purchase of confectionary items, like sweets, toffees etc. , A show cause notice was issued to the firm on 26-3-1982 (Annexure A) the petitioner, calling upon why its telephone service of Telephone No. 36231 should not be stopped for unauthorised use. This notice (Annexure A) has been issued by the respondent No. 1 the Divisional Engineer, Telephone, Indore, in purported exercise of powers given under Rule 420 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, framed under Section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. This notice called upon the subscriber firm to produce documentary proof of its bona fide use of the telephone within ten days from the date of issue of this notice, failing which the telephone service was liable to be stopped. On 15-9-1982, the respondent No. 1 passed an order stopping the telephone service on the ground that it was being unauthorisedly used by the firm M/s. Radhumal Sewaldas, while the telephone stands in the name of the firm Kumar Kishandas. This order also records that the subscriber has failed to produce the required proof in spite of sufficient opportunity given to him. The petitioner contended that on receipt of the show-cause notice (Annexure A), it had submitted a representation (Annexure C) to the respondent No. 1, It is dated 12-4-1982 as can be gathered from Annexure D, which was addressed to the Divisional Engineer II, Indore Telephones, Indore, making a grievance about stopping of the telephone service without affording any opportunity of hearing and further prayed seeking such an opportunity.
( 3 ) THE return filed by the respondents does not controvert the fact that representation (Annexure C) dated 12-4-1982 was not submitted by the subscriber-petitioner. The reply to paragraphs as submitted by the respondents merely records issuance of a show-cause notice and the order of disconnection with an addition that the petitioner was given a personal hearing and after being satisfied on the basis of the documents and the Inspection report D/-123-1982 found that the telephone connection was being used by another firm, Raghumal Sawaldas. Inspection report has been filed as Annexure R/l to the return. It would be pertinent to note that the show-cause notice does not refer to any such Inspection report, which has been referred to in reply to paragraph 3 of the petition and filed as Annexure R/l. Similarly the order of disconnection (Annexure B) also does not refer to any document or the Inspection report on which the order is sought to be based.
( 4 ) THE petitioner-firm in its reply (Annexure C) contended that the firm is still functioning at its office situated at 8-Subhash Marg, Indore, and in order to support this contention it placed the following facts for consideration by the respondents :
"l. That our said firm is registered under Section 58 (1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, the Registrar of firm and Society, Bhopal. The registered place of partnership firm is at 8, Subhash Marg, Indore. 2. That, our firm also stands registered under Section 15 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. This can be verified from the Sales Tax department; 3. It is further submitted that the said firm stands registered under Shops and Establishments Act, 1976. The address of the firm is also as stated above : 4. It is further submitted that the said firm also registered under the M. P. Municipal Corpor
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
