D.F.T. GURGAON And ANOTHER-s/ vs SURESH KUMAR , <APL>D.F.T. GURGAON And ANOTHER-s/</APL>

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Gurgaon directing the completion of all formalities within a week and thereafter releasing a telephone connection in favour of the respondent.

THE complainant-respondent is an officer of the Income-Tax Department posted at Delhi. He had applied to the Deputy Minister for Tele-Communication for the sanction of a telephone connection on an out of turn basis on the compassionate ground of providing medical aid to his aged parents and ailing old grand mother at his residential house in Gurgaon. Vide letter No. 21-259/91-PHA, dated 30th of January, 1991 issued by the Ministry of Communication, the sanction of the Director General Communication was duly accorded for the same. In pursuance of the said sanction the respondent''s name was placed on the prescribed list for out of turn release of telephone connections at Sr. No. 225. It was the complainant''s case that telephone lines were duly laid up to his house and the instrument was placed at his residence in April 1991 and was even energized on the 7th of May, 1991 when he was informed that the telephone number will be provided within a few hours. However, to the great dismay and disappointment of the respondent instead of releasing the telephone number etc. the same was disconnected without any rhyme and reasons and his later protestations in this regard fell on deaf ear. His specific allegation was that telephone connections granted to persons whose serial number in the waiting list fall far below his serial No. 225 in the same category had been released while the same was being maliciously denied to him. On notice being issued the appellants put in appearance and took up the plea that a FAX massage dated 9th of May, 1991 was received in pursuance whereof the respondent''s and other connections were kept in abeyance. It was vaguely alleged that certain clarifications regarding the case of the complainant respondent were not received and, therefore, the connection was not released in his favour. However, it was candidly admitted that the bar created by the aforesaid letter of the 9th of May, 1991 had been lifted.

The learned District Forum in its considered order noticed that the allegations of the installation of the telephone line and apparatus at the house of the complainant and deposit of all requisite charges and even the energizing of the same had not been denied. It was also found that connections of the same category were being released to other such persons apparently even those below the seniority list maintained for the out of turn release of connections. Concluding in favour of the complainant respondent, the relief was granted in the terms noticed at the out-set.

FACED with the somewhat impeccable order of the learned District Forum no meaningful argument could be advanced on behalf of the appellant. Even when pointedly asked the appellant could pose no challenge to the virtually established and admitted findings of facts in the case. Now apart from the above, the matter appears to be concluded in favour of the respondent by the order of this Commission reported in 1992 Consumer Protection Cases 215 Aman Dahiya, Advocate of Panchkula v. Union of India, Ministry of Tele-Communication, New Delhi & Others. II (1992) CPJ 576. Therein after a somewhat exhaustive examination of principle and precedent it was hold as follows : "For the foregoing reasons, it is somewhat plain that the answer to the question posed at the out-set has to be necessarily rendered in the negative and it is held that the seriatim seniority of the telephone subscriber in the list maintained for the grant of out of turn priority basis connections cannot be arbitrarily or whimsically over-ridden by the Department."

IN the present case, it was not seriously disputed that the seriatim seniority of the respondent in the list had been over-ridden. The stand taken up by the appellant showed no rationale for doing so and it must, therefore, be held that this was done arbitrarily or whimsically. The present appeal comes squarely within the ratio aforesaid and is bound to fail on that score alone. Now apart from the above, the learned Counsel for the respondent had also pointed out that it was virtually the admitted case that the telephone connection was installed and even energised at the house of the respondent. It was later on disconnected by the appellants It has been held by this Commission in First Appeal No. 64 of 1991 Shri J.S. Rathi of Panchkula v. The Distirct Manager (Telecom) Ambala Cant. & Others II (1992) CPJ 564 as follows : "In the light of the above it is somewhat plain that the answer to the question posed at the very outset has to be rendered in the negative. It is held that a subscriber''s telephone cannot be disconnected by the Department without first duly serving a written notice to that effect upon him and without affording him a reasonable opportunity to comply with the demand or to show cause against the same."

To the same effect are the ratios of the Division Bench judgments in AIR 1985 Gujarat 31 Union of India and Another v. Narayanbhai Keshavlal Patel and AIR 1984 Madhya Pradesh 158 M/s. Kumar Keshridas, Indore v. Divisional Engineer, Telephones (Admn.) Indore and Another.

IN the present case the aforesaid legal requirements were also not complied with. This is an added ground in favour of the respondent. For all the aforesaid reasons this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed with costs which are assessed at a modest sum of Rs. 200/- only. The appellants must comply with the order of the District Forum (if not already so done) and also as regards the payment of costs within a fort night from today failing which compliance will be enforced by the District Forum under Section 27 of the Act. Appeal dismissed with costs.