ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PRO) T.D.M.AMBALA CANTT vs SHAMSHER SINGH

THIS Revision Petition arises out of an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh.

THE facts as appear from the record are that the present Respondent - Shri Shamsher Singh, an Advocate of Ambala City has a telephone No. 56265. He could not deposit the dues against the bill dated 1.8.1991 resulting in disconnection of his telephone. When he contacted the Telecom Department regarding disconnection of telephone, he was given a bill for Rs. 3,030/- for payment with the following details : (1) Local service etc. : Rs. 1970/- (2) Reconnection charges : Rs. 100/- (3) Additional security : Rs. 960/-

The Complainant-Respondent i.e. Shri Shamsher Singh paid the entire amount and his telephone was reconnected. In the complaint filed before the District Forum, Ambala City the Complainant challenged the amount of Rs. 960/- charged as additional security. According to him, he had already deposited some years back Rs. 240/- as security at the time the connection was issued to him and therefore, the Department committed fault by demanding Rs. 960/-. The Telecom Department in the counter took up the plea that pare 445 of Indian Telegraph Rules permitted the Department to increase the amount of security.

THE District Forum took into consideration paras 215(5)(f), 445 and 468 of the India Telegraph Rules and the instructions issued by the Department vide letter No. TR-5/Pvt. Subs./IV/102 dated 25.6.1986 and held that the Department has power to demand security deposit even from old subscribers to the extent of one year''s advance rent and thus there was no illegality committed by the Department in calling upon the Complainant to pay Rs. 960/- as additional security. The Complaint was accordingly dismissed.

FEELING aggrieved, the Complainant filed appeal before the State Commission. The Department placed reliance only on Rule 445 of the Indian Telegraph Rules. That Rule reads as follows : "445. Security for charges - The Telegraph authority may, at any time, before or during the period for which a telephone or other like service is provided require a subscriber to deposit as security such amount as it may consider necessary and if the subscriber fails to comply with such demand within such period as it may specify, the Telegraph Authority may withdraw the service and remove any telephone or other apparatus belonging to the Telegraph Authority. Where the security deposit is paid, any amount due from the subscriber by way of fee or other charges under these rules may be adjusted against the amount so deposited."

The State Commission was of the opinion that the above Rule gave power to levy security at the time of application or before actual installation or the same may be done during the period whilst the said facility is enjoyed and the two termini are alternative in nature and certainly not cumulative and thus the rule gives discretion to the authority to require the deposit of security at either one of the two occasions. Thus according to the State Commission Rule 445 is a one time provision for demand of security either before the installation of the telephone or during the period for which the facility subsisted and Rule 445 does not either expressly or implicitly even hint at any "additional security". Accordingly the State Commission accepted the appeal and set aside the order or the District Forum and directed the Department to refund the amount of Rs. 960/- which according to it had been unauthorisedly levied as additional security. Feeling aggrieved, the Department has come before us in revision.

WE are of the opinion that the State Commission was not right in interpreting Rule 445. Rule 445 of course speaks about security for charges but it does not specify how much amount should be levied as security. To clarify that point and to obviate the arbitrariness of the officials, the Department issued instructions referred to above vide letter dated 25th June, 1986. According to it security to the extent of one year''s advance rental can be demanded. If, earlier, less security has been taken, the security amount can be increased in order to bring it up to one year''s advance rental. As held by this Commission in Telecom District Manager v. D. R. Bishnu Charan Mishra (First Appeal No. 250 of 1991), when there is no deficiency in the rendering of service, the Departmental Rules, instructions and circulars issued by the Department cannot be ignored unless those are in direct conflict to some statutory provisions. When a power has been given to a Department to demand security from the subscriber then it can claim further security upto the limit specified in that letter. It is settled principle that once a provision of law gives power to an authority to do a certain act then there is an implied authority to take steps to ensure the full performance of that act. No additional provision is required to authorise the Department to repeat the exercise of power. If more amount is required to be deposited as security such further amount will be called as additional security. Merely because it is called as ''additional security'' it cannot be said that such additional security cannot be demanded under Rule 445.

FOR the above reasons we are of the opinion that the State Commission has committed illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Hence we accept the present Revision Petition and set aside the order of the State Commission and restore that of the District Forum. In the circumstances of the case we do not make any order of costs.