A N PANDEY Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED
LAWS(DLH)-1995-10-14
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on October 27,1995

A.N.PANDEY Appellant
VERSUS
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

M T N L VS. KAY AAR APARTMENTS [LAWS(NCD)-2000-1-74] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J. - (1.)The petitioner is a subscriber of Telephone No.6864267 installed at the residence of the petitioner at X-2, Green Park, New Delhi. In the month of November, 1993, the petitioner received two bills respectively for Rs.5,40,529.00 and Rs.10,12,053.00 which were exorbitant according to the petitioner. He raised a protest whereupon he was supplied with detailed bills. It was revealed that the bills included charges for certain calls having been made to Hong Kong during night time. The telephone connection was disconnected for failure of the petitioner to pay the bils. On 2nd May, 1994, the present petition has been filed seeking withdrawl/cancellation/quashing of the demand raised by the abovesaid two bills, directing an enquiry to be held by CBI in respect of calls made and restoration of the telephone connection.
(2.). In response to the notice issued to the respondent-MTNL it has been stated that the bills are correct; that there is no tempering with the telephone of the petitioner; that the STD facility enjoyed by the petitioner has dynamic locking system which is operated by feeding a secret code known to none else than the petitioner or his family members. The dynamic STD locking facility excludes the possibility of any unauthorised use or tempering by any outside user or by MTNL staff. On a complaint made by the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner did feed the secret code for dynamic locking of STD facility and was operating the code. It was found that there was no defect in the meter which was showing the billing correctly. The details of billing cycles dated 1.9.93 and 1.11.93 show a heavy use of telephone by the petitioner at the called stations and repetitive in nature. In between the disputed calls there were other ISD calls not disputed. It cannot be said that the calls were made by someone else.
(3.). How the hearing in this petition has travelled in this Court and a few events which have taken place during the pendency of the petition deserve to be noticed in a bit little details as the same would have a material bearing on the final decision in the writ petition.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.