S. Uttamchand vs The Accounts Officer (CTR. N) and The Commercial Officer (No. II)

N.K. Jain, J.—This writ petition is filed with the allegations that on an earlier occasion, the Petitioner filed W.P.7622/89 for a mandamus directing the Respondents to transfer telephone bearing No. 31957 to the name of the Petitioner, from the name of his firm-Sha Bhaggajee Sonmull, of which his late father was the proprietor and also praying for an interim order of provision installation of the telephone in the Petitioner''s new premises at No. 24, Thandavaraya Pillai Street, Madras -79. This Court, as per the order dt.6.7.1989, directed provisional installation of the telephone in the Petitioner''s premises within two weeks. But, the said order was not complied with, within the time. Hence, Contempt Application No. 296 of 1989 was filed, in which notice had been issued and the said petition is sub judice. It is also stated that in reply in the counter filed in the said writ petition, the Respondents alleged that there was an outstanding demand for a sum of Rs. 5,850/- against the Petitioner''s ancestor. The Petitioner also alleged that though he has paid the bill for rent from 7.10.1987 to 7.12.1987 strictly speaking the Petitioner was in no obligation to remit the rental above mentioned in the bill. The liability to pay rent cannot be fastened on the Petitioner after 15.9.1987. Thus, the Petitioner has challenged the demand notice dt. 5/9.8.1989 issued by the first Respondent in the name of the Petitioner''s erstwhile firm.

A counter has been filed admitting to the extent that the Petitioner got provisional installation of the telephone as per the order of this Court in the new place of the Petitioner. It is not correct to State that the telephone has been shifted as per Rules. It is stated that as per Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, rent from the date of disconnection to the date of reconnection of the telephone should be paid by the subscriber, who is also liable to pay advance rental deposit before reconnection as per paragraph 215 of the Post and Telegraph Manual, Volume XIV. It is also stated that the Petitioner''s telephone was actually disconnected for non-payment of the bill dated 7.2.1988 and, therefore, the Department is entitled to get intervening rental charged.

Now, the grievance of the Petitioner is that, the bill pertaining to the erstwhile firm "Sha Bhaggajee Sonmull" is not liable to be paid by the Petitioner, since the telephone service was not provided in the name of the Petitioner during the period for which the bill was claimed.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that connection had been made at the new place as per the order of this Court. However, the Petitioner is liable to pay rent due to that telephone, which was shifted only in compliance with the order of this Court, along with disconnection charges during the interregnum as per Rule 443.

I have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. I have gone through the materials available regarding W.P. No. 7622 of 1989.

As seen from the materials available on record, the Petitioner''s father was the owner of the firm "Sha Bhaggajee Sonmull", and he died on 14.3.1980. The Petitioner was using the telephone and remitting the charges for its use. While so, on 30.8.1987, the Petitioner wrote a letter praying to shift the telephone to the new address. The telephone department did not remove the same, but the owner removed the instrument and gave it to the Petitioner. The telephone Department called for certain particulars, which the Petitioner could not comply with. Correspondences, were on, as seen from the affidavit filed in W.P. No. 7662 of 1989, which resulted in filing W.P. No. 7662 of 1989 seeking transfer of the telephone. By an interim order, this Court ordered to provisionally install the telephone. When the Department demanded payment as per the impugned demand, the Petitioner is before this Court.

Learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel drew my attention to the fact that the telephone department gave provisional installation only in compliance with the order of this Court and the Petitioner is using the telephone since 1980, when his father, the proprietor of the firm, expired, and that the question, whether it is a transfer or not, had not at all been decided and so, the Petitioner is liable to pay the rent as per the Rules. He also drew the attention of this Court to the fact that as per the affidavit of the Petitioner itself, the instrument was removed by the erstwhile owner and was given to the Petitioner, and as such, the Department had not at all effected transfer. While correspondences were on, without satisfying the authorities, the Petitioner approached this Court earlier and got provisional installation. In such circumstances, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel pointed out that the Petitioner is liable to pay the amount mentioned in the impugned order.

The arguments of the learned Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel is well founded. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to show that transfer had been effected by the Department. That is the subject matter of W.P. 7662/89. In such prevailing situation, the action of the Department cannot be said to be an illegal one. For the period from the date of disconnection to the date of installation, the Petitioner is liable to pay the amount mentioned in the impugned order. Moreover, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not able to show that the Petitioner had satisfied the queries raised by the department, regarding ownership etc. In any view of the matter, the Petitioner has not come with clean hands.

Without touching the merits of W.P. 7662/89, I am satisfied that there is no infirmity in the impugned order of the Respondents. It is made clear that the observations made in this writ petition will not in any way influence the subject matter of W.P. No. 7662/89. There are no merits in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP. 17488 of 1989 is dismissed.