B.C. Varma, J.

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