- (1.) THESE petitions under Arti cle 226 of the Constitution raise a common question for determination. In both the petitions it is prayed that a Writ of cer-tiorari be granted quashing the order dated 27-7-1967 which was passed indivi dually against each petitioner. It is fur ther prayed that writ of mandamus be issued directing the opposite parties not to disconnect or remove telephone No. 32702 in case of the petitioner in the first case and telephone No. 33262 in case of the petitioner in the second case. In both the petitions there is a further prayer also for an interim order com manding the opposite parties not to dis connect the said telephones. This Court issued an interim order in each case. It, however, appears that in Writ petition No. 3159 of 1967 the telephone of the peti tioner was actually disconnected before the interim order passed by this Court was communicated to the Authorities con cerned. In the second case, however, the stay order was communicated before the actual disconnection of the telephone.
(2.) BOTH the petitioners in the instant Writ petitions are businessmen having telephone connections in their business premises. A bill for the fixed rental for the period from 1-4-1967 to 30-6-1967 and local calls for the period from 1-12-1966 to 28-2-1967 was given to and received by the petitioner of each case in March, 1967. The amount demanded under the bill in the case of R. D. Kanodia petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3159 of 1967, was Rs. 657.30 Paise. The number of local calls shown in the bill during the relevant period was 4292. In the case of R. C. Gupta, petitioner in writ petition No. 3164 of 1967, the amount demanded under the bill was Rs. 122.85 Paise and the number of local calls noted in the bill for the period was 729. It is admitted that both these bills were duly paid by the peti tioners. Subsequently, however, a further bill was submitted to each of the peti tioners in July, 1967 demanding a further sum of Rs. 4, 500 in case of Kanodia and a further sum of Rs. 5, 000 in case of Gupta which amounts were required to be paid by the party concerned within fifteen days of the date of issue of each bill. In Kanodia's case, it was mentioned In the bill that as against the total local calls for the period in question amounting to 34292. in the original bills, the figure was by mistake shown as 4292. Similarly in the case of Gupta, it was noted in the subsequent bill that as against the correct figure of local calls numbering 20729, the figure of 729 was incorrectly mentioned in the original bill. Each petitioner, there upon, wrote letters to the Telephone Authorities concerned asking them to furnish details of the meter readings during the relevant period. The figures of Meter readings supplied to Kanodia are mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 7 of his writ petition and the figures supplied to Gupta are mentioned in paragraph 6 of his petition. The petitioners wrote to the Authorities protesting against the sub sequent bill sent to each of them and con tended that the subsequent bills were wrong and on no calculation the number of local calls could be of the magnitude as shown in the subsequent bills. The Authorities concerned, however, ac cording to the petitioners, paid no heed to their protests and objections and inti mated that the respective telephones of the petitioners would be disconnected un less the amount demanded was paid. Thereafter the present two Writ petitions were filed in this Court. A counter-affidavit has been filed in each case on behalf of the respondents. In the counter-affidavits it has, inter alia, been alleged that the meter works automa tically and works under the system known as 'time and zone'. It has been explain ed as to how this system works and it has been stated that Kanpur has been provided with a direct dialling system for trunk connections and that whenever a sub scriber dials, for example Delhi, the meter starts working as soon as the sub scriber gets an effective connection. Thereafter the Meter automatically works and for each period of six seconds the Meter registers one local call. The Meter automatically goes on registering local calls in this manner so long as the trunk connection obtained by the subscriber is not disconnected by him. It has further been alleged in the counter-affidavits that the Meter can record upto 9999 calls and as soon as that figure is reached and the next call is registered, the meter shows "0000" and starts working afresh there after beginning with No. 1. It has further been alleged in the counter-affidavits that the Authorities concerned received some information about the misuse of telephones by some subscribers and thereupon it was decided to open special registers and to note therein the Meter reading of such sub scribers much more frequently than is done ordinarily. Ordinarily a subscriber's Meter is read every fortnight but in case of persons against whom some reports had been received a direction was given to read their Meters very frequently either on alternate days or at such short intervals as may be considered appropriate. Such frequent readings thus came to be recor ded in the special register opened for this purpose. In that special register whenever a reading showed that the figure "9999" had been crossed a circle was put around the reading made on a particular date. This indicated that the Meter had already registered 10000 calls i.e. 9999 actually shown in the Meter and 1 more call indi cated by "0000". It has been stated in the counter-af fidavits that while sending the original bills, it was omitted to be noted that in case of Kanodia there were three "circle marks" and in the case of Gupta, there were two 'circle marks' in the special register against readings on different dates indicating that in each case local calls to the extent of 10000 had already been re gistered. Thus in the case of Kanodia there occurred a difference of 30000 calls between the bill originally sent and the revised bill sent subsequently and in the case of Kanodia. (Sic Gupta) a difference of 20000 calls.
(3.) TODAY Mr. H. N. Seth. learned counsel for the respondents, showed me the special register which according to his instructions, is maintained at Kanpur and on the basis of which the revised bills were sent to the two petitioners. On seeing the special register at least I was, prima facie, satisfied that the bills which were subsequently sent were in con formity with the figures noted in that re gister. It has, however, been suggested on behalf of the petitioners that no re liance can be placed on the register and that a casual look into the register itself might show that in fact the register had been written at one and the same time and that it may very well have been manufactured for certain purposes. It is not necessary for me to go into the ques tion and to give any decision as to whe ther the special register is a genuine re gister or it has been forged or manufactur ed for the purpose of defence in these cases or for the purpose of sending ficti tious bills to the petitioners. Indeed, I am not in a position either to investigate into this question or to re cord any finding thereon. I was also, prima facie, satisfied by the explanation given by Mr. Seth that even if you ignore the circle marks placed around certain figures on certain dates you will get the correct figure shown in each of the revised bills by calculating the number of local calls in each case from the Meter readings noted in the special register.;