Madras High Court
Mrs. R.M. Chinnammal vs The General Manager, Bharath Sanchar ... on 28 November, 2002
ORDER R. Balasubramanian, J.
1. The petitioner seeks a direction in the nature of a mandamus directing the respondents to re-connect her telephone having indicator No.6213925 to her residence. The facts are as follows:
Murugappan is the son-in-law of the petitioner. He had a telephone with indicator number 6288621. He appears to have defaulted in payment of rent to the tune of Rs.1,32,811/- in respect of that service connection. Therefore, exercising power under Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') that service connection was disconnected. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the defaulter are living in the same house. But it must be noticed that the petitioner also had a telephone in her name with indicator number 6213925. For the default committed by the son-in-law, his telephone line was disconnected on 17.8.2000. For that default the petitioner's telephone line was also disconnected on the same day. Only in such circumstances the petitioner is before this court for the relief as referred to above.
2. A learned Judge of this court in B.V.K. Krishnan & 2 others v. M/s. BSNL (2002-1-L.W. 668) held that the telephone department has no authority to disconnect the telephone line of persons other than the defaulter. In other words, as per the judgment referred to above, for the default committed by the son-in-law in respect of his telephone number, the department has no right to disconnect the telephone number of the petitioner. To sustain the act of disconnection, learned counsel appearing for the department heavily relies upon the amendment brought to Rule 416 of the Rules referred to above. In exercise of the powers conferred under section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Central Government amended the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. The amended Rules were called Indian Telegraph (Second Amendment) Rules, 2000. Those Rules amended the existing Rule 416 by adding another sub-Rule to Rule 416(2)(b). The new Rule reads as follows:
"Refusal of New Telephone Connection to the Near/closed Relations of Defaulter Telephone Subscriber:
(iii) a new telephone connection or telex connection may be refused to any relative or an associate living on, or working from, the same premises as that of a defaulting telephone subscriber and the new connection may, however, be released to the applicant if the defaulting subscriber pays the outstanding dues along with penalty, as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority.
Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-clause:
(A) the term "relative" includes husband, wife and blood relations, for example, parents, brother, sister, son or daughter (including step son, step daughter), in-laws, members of the Hindu Undivided Family, son or daughter of a predeceased son, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, brother's wife, sister's husband, etc. (B) the term "associate" includes partners, directors, proprietors of a company, firm, society, association, etc."
3. The head note of the Rule itself makes it clear that the intended Rule would operate only when a new telephone connection is asked for by the near/close relations of defaulter/telephone subscriber. The Rule makes it abundantly clear that when any relative or an associate, living on, or working from, the same premises as that of a defaulting telephone subscriber, asks for a new telephone connection, it can be refused. An exception is provided to this. "Relative" and "associate" are defined in the explanation. Under the Rule, the petitioner comes within the term "relative". But the question is, relying upon this Rule, can the Department refuse to restore the telephone service to the petitioner to her house? As already stated, the petitioner's telephone service was disconnected for the default committed by her son-in-law and the judgment of this court referred to supra had laid down that the Department has no power to disconnect the telephone of a "relative" of a defaulter. The amended Rule would come into operation only when a new telephone connection is asked for by any relative or associate of a defaulter, provided they are living or working in the same premises. The writ petitioner is not asking for a new telephone connection and what she wants is, restoration of her service connection, which was wrongly disconnected for the default committed by her son-in-law. Therefore I have no hesitation at all to hold that relying upon the amended Rule the Department cannot refuse to restore the petitioner's telephone connection, which stands disconnected as on date. Accordingly the writ petition stands allowed as prayed for and the respondents are given seven days time from the date of the copy of this order being made ready by the Registry to restore the petitioner's telephone connection. Normally if a telephone is disconnected due to the fault of the subscriber and a request is made to restore, the Department will claim re-connection charges and other dues. But in the case on hand, the petitioner's service connection came to be disconnected for no fault of hers. Therefore the Department cannot claim any charges from the petitioner for restoring her service connection. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No.27595/2002 is closed.