Back
2007 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38277
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
C.C.PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
PRL.GENERAL MANAGER,B.S.N.K.LTD – Respondent
WP(C)/30396/2007
SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM
A late request for reconnection after disconnection is treated as a new application under the Telegraphic Rules, invalidating claims to the previous number.
Headnote:
Telephone - Disconnection - Telegraphic Rules - Section 169 - The court upheld the respondents' interpretation of Rule 169, determining that the petitioner's request for reconnection post-disconnection must be considered a new application, thus denying restoration of the old number.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner had his telephone disconnected for non-payment, and after applying for restoration a year later, learned it had been reallocated. He sought reconnection to the old number.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that per Rule 169, the request for restoration after disconnection must be viewed as a new application for service. The reallocation to a third party was lawful.
Issues: Whether a petitioner can reclaim a previously allotted telephone number after it has been disconnected and reallocated to another party.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's late application for reconnection constituted a new application, hence the allocation of the number to a third party was valid.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to apply for a new connection.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner had a Telephone allotted by the respondents and the same was disconnected on 24.8.2006. Petitioner did not pay the amount within the period permitted under Section 169 of the Telegraphic Rules. There was also no application for restoration. In the meanwhile, in response to an application made by a stranger, whom the petitioner now seeks to implead as additional 3rd respondent, the Telephone with the same number was allotted to him on 24.9.2007. In the meantime, petitioner also made an application for restoration of the connection on 21.8.2007 and he also cleared the arrears on 27.9.07. This writ petition has been filed praying to reconnect the Telephone with the old number that was allotted to him.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that in terms of Rule
169, the request made by the defaulter subscriber after disconnection of the Telephone has to be treated as application for a new connection. Respondents submit that though the telephone was disconnected on 24.8.06, his application for restoration of connection was made only on 21.8.2007. According to him, in the meanwhile the Telephone in question was allotted to a 3rd party. Though the respondents are willing to give a connection to the petitioner, the same number cannot be allotted to the him WPC NO 30396/07 Page numbers in view of the fact that the said number has already been allotment of the
3rd party.
3. I see no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. In view of Rule 169 of the Telegraphic Rules, the request made by the petitioner has to be treated as a request for new connection. If that be so, the allotment made to the 3rd party also cannot be faulted. Hence, the petitioner has to be satisfied with a new connection and with a new number. The prayer sought for by the petitioner to restore connection with the old number is hence devoid of merits and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
4. However, in view of the eligibility of the petitioner to get a new connection pursuant to the application and remittance that he has made, I direct that the new connection shall be given to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vps WPC NO 30396/07 Page numbers
