Nirmal Kumar Sharma vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
1996 Latest Caselaw 547 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.

(1) The petitioner is the subscriber of telephone No. 2242635 which has been disconnected on 22.11.1994. He seeks restoration of the telephone connection. According to the petitioner the telephone has been disconnected for the recovery of some dues outstanding in respect of telephone No. 2227379 of Shri S.L. Sharma, the earlier subscriber of the petitioner's telephone. It is submitted that the petitioner's telephone cannot be disconnected for recovery of such dues.

(2) According to the respondent, the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands . He has distorted the facts and made material concealment of important and relevant facts. It is pointed out that Shri S.L, Sharma was the subscriber of telephone No. 2242635. Shri S.L. Sharma is the father of the petitioner and both are living in the same house. At one point of lime telephone No. 2242635 and 2227395 were both in the name of Shri S.L, Sharma. He had defaulted in making the payment of Rs. 23061.00 outstanding against telephone No. 2227395. As per rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules both the telephone connections of Shri S.L. Sharma were liable to be disconnected for recovery of dues against any one of the two telephone connections, When Shri S.L. Sharma was asked to make the said payment and threatened with disconnection, he requested for facility of payment by instalments which was allowed. The first instalment was paid piecemeal on 12.1.94 and 17.1.94. The second instalment falling due in Feb 94 was not paid as a result of which telephone No. 2242635 was also disconnected,

(3) Telephone No. 2227395 was given to Shri S.L. Sharma as PCO. He had collected money in question from the persons (used as PCO) who were allowed to make calls from the telephone. The correctness of the outstanding against telephone No.2227395 was also not disputed at any lime by Shri S.L. Sharma.

(4) It is further pointed out that Shri S.L. Sharma secured facility of payment by instalments of dues outstanding against telephone No. 2227395 at a point of time when orders had already been passed for disconnecting the other telephone No-2242635 also. Disconnection was not effected as the First instalment was paid on 12.1.1994 and 17.1.1994. Having secured the facility of payment by instalments Shri S.L. Sharma had made a prayer for transfer of 2242635 in the name of his son, namely the petitioner. As an amount of Rs. 20628.00 after adjusting the payments made on 12.1.94 and 17.1.94, was left outstanding and became overdue the telephone 2242635 was also disconnected in November, 1994.

(5) Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules provides if on or before due date the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone service provided are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with these rules, any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him may be disconnected without notice. On a plain reading of the Rule both the connections in the name of S.L. Sharma were liable to be disconnected for recovery of dues in respect of any one telephone connection held by him. Orders to that effect were also passed. Shri S.L. Sharma instead of paying the bill in full secured facility of payment by instalments and then designedly secured the transfer of one telephone in the name of his son who is related by blood to him and also residing in the same house. The possibility of Shri S.L. Sharma still using the telephone off and on, though the same stands on papers transferred in the name of his son cannot be ruled out. In the circumstances, the power of the respondent to disconnect one of the the two telephones for recovery of outstanding dues against the other one and relateable to a period when both the telephones were held by one subscriber- Shri S.LSharma, cannot be denied though one of the telephones has later on been transferred in the name of the present petitioner.

(6) The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Smt Krishna Kumar & Anr v. Delhi Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. 1989(3) Dl 211, Y.Pridhvi Kumar v. General Manager, Telecom District, Hyderabad and Santokh Singh vs Divisional Engineer Telephones, Shilong Air 1990 Gauhati 47 to submit that the telephone standing in the name of one subscriber cannot be disconnected for recovery of dues against a telephone standing in the name of another subscriber though the two may be related to each other. Suffice it to observe that all the cases relied upon by the counsel are distinguishable. In none of the cases relied on by him the facts were such as are in the case at hand. It is clear that the subscriber had tried to make fool of the telephone department by securing transfer of one telephone connection after he had secured facility of payment of outstanding dues by instalments and discontinued payment by instalments after securing such transfer of one of the telephone connection in the name of his son.

(7) Rule 443 has been enacted in the interest of public revenue. It knots a net to catch the defaulting sharks. The hunt cannot be allowed to hunt-the-gook, design by its own act a hole and escape through it. Remedial laws must be given claws and the net given a wider sweep so as to serve its purpose.

(8) By an interim order dated 19.12.94 one Division Bench of this Court had directed telephone connection No. 2242635 to be restored to the petitioner subject to his continuing to pay the current bills regularly.

(9) In view of the above said facts, the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence being shown in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this court. The petition is dismissed. However, one month's time is allowed to the petitioner to secure clearance of outstanding against telephone No. 2227395. Till then, i.e. for one month the petitioner shall continue to enjoy the service of telephone No. 2242635. In case of non-clearance of the dues as aforesaid, the respondent shall be at liberty to disconnect No. 2242635. As we have held the disconnection justified and the restoration has been effected under the interim orders of this court, it is directed that the petitioner shall pay restoration charges within one month from today. The petitioner shall pay costs to the respondent quantified at Rs. 1000.00 .