( 1. ) THE petitioner has a telephone, bearing No. 28434 at her residence. She has yet another telephone, bearing No. 29390 installed at her clinic. According to her, the bills on the first telephone varied between Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,600/-per month. She regularly deposited the telephone charges. On 1-8-1987, she received a bill for Rs. 19,221/ -. Feeling naturally that it was completely out of proportion as compared to the bills received by her in the past, she protested against that bill. However, without taking any decision on the obnjection raised, the telephone was disconnected. A provisional bill was, however, tendered to the petitioner on 20-9-1987 for Rs. 2,122/-, which she paid. On payment of additional charges for re-connection, the telephone was re-connected. In April 1988, the petitioner was informed that the earlier bill for Rs. 19,221/was found to be correct on verification. She was asked to deposit that amount and the notice contained a direction that the telephone shall be disconnected, if the amount of the bill was not paid. The petitioner then received a letter No. TRA/28434/14 dated 3-2-1989 (Document No. 2), requiring her to pay all the telephone bills relating to telephone No. 28434, failing which her other telephone No. 29390 shall also be disconnected. She responded to this letter saying that she was prepared to pay the bills dated 5-2-1988 and 11-4-1988. She, however, disputed the bill dated 1-8-1987 as arbitrary and unreasonable. As the amount under the bill dated 1-8-1987 remained unpaid, the petitioners both the telephones have been disconnected. This petition is directed against this action of disconnecting both the telephones.

( 2. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the bill dated 1-8-1987 for the use of telephone No. 28434 is shockingly high, exorbitant and arbitrary, when compared to the previous bills. It only shows some defect in the instrument or defective reading. In support of this contention, it was mentioned that even for the period when the telephone remained disconnected, the petitioner continued to receive bills for use of that telephone by her. No doubt, it is true that compared to the bills received by the petitioner in the past for use of the telephone No. 28434, the bill dated 1-8-1987 is excessive. All the same, the department verified the petitioners complaint and results of the verification are that the bill was correct. Nothing, therefore turns upon this contention.

( 3. ) THE next contention, has been that in accordance with Rule 421 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, as amended in 1986, framed in exercise of power under section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, no notice was given to her before disconnecting the telephone. Section 3 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, defines telegraph to mean telephone also. By force of section 4, within India the Central Government shall have exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs. The first proviso to that section, authorises the Central Government to grant a licence subject to such rules as may be framed under the Act on such conditions and in consideration of such payment as it thinks fit, to any person to establish, maintain or work a telegraph within any part of India. Section 7 empowers the Central Government to make rules consistent with the Act for grant of a licence to establish, maintain or work telegraphs or for the conduct of all or any telegraphs established, maintained or worked by the Government or by persons licensed under the Act. Thus the exclusive privilege of supplying telegraph connections vests in the Central Government. This, however, is regulated by the rules framed under section 7 and if the rules framed do not provide for certain matters, executive instructions may be issued by the Central Government in respect of such matters, the only prohibition being that such instructions should not conflict with or defeat any provision of the Act or the rules. Such has a