Karnataka High Court
G.T. Rama Reddy vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 9 September, 1996
Equivalent citations: ILR1997KAR361
Author: R.V. Raveendran
Bench: R.V. Raveendran
ORDER
R.V. Raveendran, J
1. Petitioner is a subscriber of Telephone No. 226798 (later 2226798). The said telephone connection was obtained 25.4.1989. The telephone was earlier installed in premises No. 184/2, 18th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-20. On 26.9.1989, the petitioner requested for shifting the said telephone to No. 21, Shivaganga Mutt Road, Bangalore-18. The Department informed the petitioner by letter dated 17.10.1989 that the telephone was located in the city exchange area and the shifting was sought to the Shankarapurarn Exchange area; and shifting from one exchange to other exchange, could be permitted only if the telephone had been obtained at least three years back; and if the telephone had been in service for less than three years, the date of application for new connection should be within the release period for new connection in the concerned category in the new exchange area; and as neither of the said conditions was fulfilled, the Department was unable to shift the telephone. It was thus open to the petitioner to have applied for shifting after sometime when he would have become eligible to seek shifting.
2. However, the petitioner did not thereafter apply for shifting, but permitted the telephone to be used by one S.K. Sajjad Awno, proprietor of S.K. Engineering Works, on some private understanding. This is admitted in Annexure-D which is a 'notice issued by the petitioner through the Counsel to the said S.K. Sajjid Awno. The said licencee from the petitioner, did not pay the telephone bills and there was arrears of Rs. 51,933/- in regard to the said phone. Hence, the Department sent a notice dated 31.5.1996 (Annexure-B) to the petitioner stating that telephone No. 2226798 was dosed on 3.7.1995 and calling upon petitioner to pay the arrears of Rs. 51,933/- due in regard to the said telephone. As petitioner did not pay, the Department has issued the impugned notice dated 18.6.1996 (Annexure-C) again requesting for payment of Rs. 51,933/- in regard to the said telephone and proposing to disconnect another telephone bearing No. 625037 (New No. 6695063) standing in the name of the petitioner if he did not pay the arrears relating to telephone No. 2226798. Accordingly, the Department has disconnected the Telephone No. 6695063. Petitioner feels aggrieved.
3. According to the petitioner, a telephone can be disconnected only for non-payment of any dues in regard to the said telephone and if the subscriber has more than one telephone irr his name and if he commits any default in paying any bill amount in regard to one telephone, his other telephone/s cannot be disconnected. The petitioner, therefore, contends that disconnection of telephone bearing No. 6695053) for non-payment of arrears relating to telephone No. 2226798 is illegal and unauthorised. Hence, he has filed this petition for a declaration that action of the respondent in disconnecting the telephone No. 6695063 as illegal and seeking a direction to respondents to restore the telephone No. 6695063.
4. The Counsel for the Respondents contended that Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 enables the Department to disconnect any telephone standing in the name of the subscriber for default committed by the said subscriber in regard to payment of bills relating to any other telephone standing in the name of the same subscriber. The said rule is extracted below for ready reference:
"443. Default of payment.-- x x x
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied in the Decision of the Gauhati High Court in SANTOKH SINGH v. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELEPHONES, SHILLONG AIR 1990 Gau 47 wherein it is held that if a subscriber has more than one connection, only the telephone in respect of which there has been default in payment can be disconnected and not the other telephone/s standing in the name of same subscriber.
6. Rule 443 provides that if the subscriber does not pay the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone service provided, or bills for charges in respect of calls or phonograms or other dues, any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him may be disconnected without notice. The working makes it dear that disconnection need not be restricted to the telephone in respect of which arrears have remained due. If the intention was to disconnect only the telephone in regard to which amounts have become due, Rule 443 would have used the words "such telephone or telex service may be disconnected". But the Rule uses the words "any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him may be disconnected". In the absence of such a safeguard, nothing would prevent the subscriber from running up a huge bill in regard to one telephone and without paying the same, get another telephone or continue to use another telephone connection and run up another huge bill for the said telephone and go on repeating the said process without paying the arrears due to the Department. While it is true that the said Rule cannot be used for disconnecting telephones standing in the name of other, family members, or other persons, the Rule expressly provides and contemplates disconnection of any telephone or telex of the same subscriber. Rule 443 is intended to ensure that a subscribers pays the arrears in regard to his telephone and if the said protection is denied, the Department will not be able to recover the amounts due to it effectively. I, therefore respectfully disagree with the decision of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in SANTOKH SINGH case. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and accordingly, it is rejected.
7. Sri Padmanabhan, learned Additional C.G.S.C. is permitted to file memo of appearance in six weeks.