S SANTHANARAMAN Vs. TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER THANJAVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed with the allegations that petitioner is a subscriber of telephone bearing No.MNG 775 installed at his residence at No.38, East, First St, Mannargudi, Thanjavur, District since February, 1987, It is alleged that the respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 29.9.1989 addressed to his father, received by the petitioner stating that the father has not paid the bill dated 1.9.1989 for Rs.19,489 in respect of telephone No.MNG 364, which was disconnected on 20.5.1989 for non-payment of the said amount. If is further stated that if the above bill is not paid by 13.10.1989, the petitioner's telephone bearing No.MNG 775 will be disconnected without further notice. It is also alleged that the telephone No.MNGH 775 is associated by telephone No.MNG 364. Hence, he filed this petition seeking to quash the communication dated 19.9.1989 and to forbear the respondents from disconnecting the petitioner's telephone in pursuance of the communication dated 29.9.1989.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the respondents it is stated that the father of the petitioner was asked to pay the due under telephone bill dated 1.9.1989 for Rs.19,489 comprising of rent of Rs.140 for two months from 1.10.1989 to 30.11.1989, local call charges for the period from 16.6.1989 to 15.8.1989 of Rs.19,343 and trunk call charges for the period from 16.6.1989 to 15.8.1989 of Rs.6. The petitioner neither replied, nor reported about the death of his father and he has also not paid the bill. It is also stated that the telephone in the name of the his father was in the same premises and the petitioner was using the same even after the death of the subscriber without any intimation. It is also stated that after the Department issued another letter, the impugned notice dated 29.9.1989, the petitioner replied on 5.10.1989 and in response thereto, the Department sent a registered letter with acknowledgement due to furnish some particulars as per law. But, no reply was sent and the bill was also not paid and therefore, the Department is entitled to disconnect the telephone of the petitioner for the non-payment of the dues of his father's telephone, which was installed in the same premises.