Allahabad High Court
Nimish Gupta vs Secretary, Department Of ... on 11 July, 2024
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47162-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5974 of 2024 Petitioner :- Nimish Gupta Respondent :- Secretary, Department Of Telecommunications, New Delhi And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard the petitioner in person and the learned D.S.G.I, Sri S.B. Pandey assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and Sri J.N. Mathur, learned senior advocate who has appeared before this Court for opposite party no. 3, Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd.
No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 4.
In view of the order proposed to be passed by us, issuance of notice to opposite party no. 4 is dispensed with.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following main prayer:-
"a. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the opposite party no. 1 and 2 to immediately reactivate the Petitioner's mobile number +91 70523 00000 in favour of the petitioner.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party no. 01 & 02 to provide a valid reason for the deactivation of the said mobile number."
The preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner has no grievance against any action or inaction on the part of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. His relief is sought may be against the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 which are private service providers given telephone connections to the consumers.
It is the case of the petitioner that he had a post-paid mobile number which was initially activated by opposite party no. 4 Vodafone Idea, but was ported to reliance jio, the opposite party no. 3. The petitioner has been paying his bills regularly. In the third quarter of 2023, the petitioner discovered that his mobile number has been de-activated. No prior notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The petitioner sent a legal notice on 20.1.2024 to the opposite party nos. 1 to 3. A response was received from opposite party no. 3 on 16.2.2024 wherein, specific reason for deactivation was provided to the petitioner. The response being vague, the petitioner has approached this Court with the aforementioned prayers.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 3 on the basis of instruction says that Cyber Crime Cell of Bangalore City Police had given a list of 603 phone numbers which they wanted deactivated as they were found involved on investigation in Cyber Crimes noted against each such number and during verification conducted by the Police, it was established that these numbers are involved in frauds and would need to be deactivated immediately to prevent further occurrence of such Cyber Crimes. A copy of the letter dated 26.8.2023 is sent by the D.C.P. Command Centre Bangalore City Police to the LSA Head, Department of Telecommunication has been produced before this Court.
We have gone through the list which contain details of the type of frauds that have been found to be committed by consumers allotted such mobile numbers which includes Crypto Currency Fraud, Credit Card Fraud, Anydesk Application, Impersonation Fraud, OLX Fraud and Social Media Fraud etc. The mobile number, of which, the petitioner is the allotee, has been shown to be evolved in social media fraud.
We are of the considered opinion that if, there is any violation of any specific terms of contract entered into between the petitioner who is the consumer and the service provider, then the appropriate remedy for the petitioner to approach the competent civil court under private law. A writ petition under article 226 is not maintainable against private persons as public law remedy cannot be exercised where, appropriate remedy is already available under the private law.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.7.2024 Mayank