- (1.) Heard Sri V.K.Shukla for the petitioners and Sri Mohd. Isha Khan for the respondents. The Petitioner have prayed for quashing of the notice dated 2nd June 1998 and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to disconnect four of his telephones. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that those telephone connections.
(2.) It appears that petitioner No.2 Vijay Kumar Gupta was a partner in the firm Lala Sukhdev Ram Rolling Mills and there was a telephone connection no. 348597 in the name of that firm Obviously, since the petitioner no.2 was a partner in the said firm, he is liable to pay the telephone bills of the firm since under Section 25 of the Partnership Act each partner is individually and severly liable. Learned councel for the petitioner urged that the other telephone connection bearing no. 370077,342619,340440 and 371440 are in the name of petitioner and hence they could not have been disconnected for the dues against the firm Lala Sukhdev Ram Rolling Mills. We are not in agreement with this submission Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules States as follws. : "443 Default of payment:- 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 accordence with these rules , or bills for charges in respect of calls (Local and Trunks) 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 Telephone or Telephones or the Telex so disconnected may, if the Telegraph Authority thinks fit, be restored, if the defaulting subscriber pays the outstanding dues and reconnection fee together with the rental for such portion of the itervening period (during which the telephone or Telex) remains disconnected) as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority from time to time. The subscriber shall pay all the above charges within such period as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority from time to time."
(3.) The language of Rule 443 is very clear. If a person is in default in payment of telephones dues of one telephone and if he has any other telephone connection(s) also, the other telephone connection can also be disconnected in view of rule 443. Since the petitioner was liable to pay the dues in respect of telephone no. 348597. Hence the other four telephone connections could also be disconnected. If however, the petitioner pays the telephone bill in respect of telephone no. 348597, the other telephone connection will be reconnected forthwith provided he has paid the bills for those telephones connection also;