TELECOM DISTT.ENGINEER, BATHINDA vs RAMJI DAS

THIS Revision Petition has been filed by the Telecom District Engineer, Bathinda who was the Opposite Party No. 2 in Complaint Petition No. 19 of 1991 on the file of the District Forum, Bathinda. There are two telephone connections having the numbers 4389 and 6621 in the name of Ramji Das, the complainant. On the ground that there were arrears of dues remaining unpaid in respect of the latter telephone namely, 6621, the Department disconnected that telephone. Subsequently, telephone No. 4389 was also disconnected on the same ground of the non-payment of the bills outstanding '' in respect of telephone No. 6621. The complainant approached the District Forum with the plea that the Department had no right to disconnect telephone No. 4389 since no amount was outstanding as due in respect of that particular telephone. The District Forum relied on certain observations contained in the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Santokh Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Telephone, Shillong & Ors. and upheld the aforesaid plea of the complainant. Consequently it issued an order directing the Opposite Parties to restore the connection in respect of telephone No. 4389 within to weeks of the receipt of the order. It also awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- by way of compensation to the complainant.

THE Department carried the matter in appeal before the State Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh. The State Commission expressed agreement with the view taken by the Gauhati High Court and held that the power conferred under Rule 443 of the Post and Telegraphs Rules was "confined only to the particular telephone in respect of which there is default in payment and not the other telephone." On the basis of the aforesaid view, the State Commission confirmed the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Department. A cross appeal filed by the complainant requesting for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to him was dismissed by the State Commission. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed against it by the District Forum and the State Commission, the Department has come up before us with this Revision Petition.

RULE 443 of the Post and Telegraph Rules reads as under: "If, on or before the 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, or bills for charges in respect of calls or phonograms or other dues from the subscriber are not duly paid by him, any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him may be disconnected without notice."

THE wording of the Rule is absolutely clear and unambiguous. It expressly empowers the Department in cases of default in payment of the rent or other charges in respect of a telephone service provided to a subscriber to disconnect without notice any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him. We see no warrant at all for deviating from the plain language used by the framers of the Rule and giving the words of the rule a restricted meaning so as to confine the power of disconnection only to the particular telephone in respect of which a default has been committed in payment of the bill. We are unable to accept as correct the narrow interpretation placed on the rule by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Santokh Singh''s case. In our opinion, the clear language of the rule must be given its full effect. It is not within the province of this Commission to entertain any challenge against the constitutionality of the rule and adjudicate on any question as to its reasonableness etc. We are informed that the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Santokh Singh''s case relied on by the respondents is pending in appeal before the Supreme Court of India and that the operation of the High Court''s judgment has been stayed by the Supreme Court. In the light of what we have stated above, we hold that the District Forum and the State Commission acted illegally and without jurisdiction in allowing the complaint petition and issuing the direction for restoration of the telephone connection and for payment of compensation.

THE impugned orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are hereby set aside and the complaint Petition No. 19 of 1991 will stand dismissed, on the costs which we fix at Rs. 500/-.