MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. vs OM PARKESH GARG

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the District Forum dated 17th October, 1993. Briefly the facts of the case are that the telephone No. 7180031 had been installed in the premises of the complainant-respondent and it remained installed till July, 1993. THIS telephone number was closed in March, 93 and he was allotted another telephone No. 7249618. He was given a bill showing arrears for the period from 20th November, 1991 to 30-6-93 for telephone No. 7249618. In view of that bill his telephone was disconnected,. Consequently, he filed a complaint and prayed for interim injunction.

THE learned District Forum granted ad-interim injunction subject to deposit of Rs. 1,000/-, in favour of the complainant and directed the respondent to restore the telephone within 3 days of the payment of the amount. He deposited the said amount on 8th October, 1993. THE department has come up in appeal against the ad-interim injunction order. It is contended by Mr. Joshi that no interim injunction order could be issued by the District Forum. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on A.K. Virmani v. D.E.S.U. (Revision Petition No. 284 of 1993) decided on 1-10-93 by the National Commission. On the other hand Mr. S.K. Garg, learned Advocate for the respondent, has argued that the complainant/ respondent in pursuance of the order of the District Forum deposited the amount of Rs. 1,390/-, which included the amount of Rs. 1,000/-. The excess amount was deposited by them as department wanted him to deposit a further amount of Rs. 390/-. However, inspite of depositing the amount his telephone has not been restored till date.

We have duly considered the arguments. It is no doubt true that the District Forum could not issue an ad-interim injunction order as observed by the National Commission in A.K . Virmani v. D.E.S.U. However, the department after the order of the Court asked the respondent to deposit Rs. 390/- in addition to Rs. 1,000/- for restoration of the connection. Therefore, in our view, they are now stopped from challenging that order. In case, they wanted to challenge the same, they should not have asked him to deposit the additional amount and accepted the amount as directed by the learned District Forum.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we dismiss the revision petition but leave the parties to bear their own costs. Revision Petition dismissed. __________