- (1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of BSNL dated November 7th, 2003, relevant portion whereof is: "Considering the notice served vice letter No. AOTR/CT-111/OS/Review 07-08-2003 as per CDF decision as above and due to non-payment of outstanding due of Rs.1,56,552 :00 till date and your letter no. RB/1173 dt.07.10.2003. You are once again requested to pay the outstanding dues by 15.11.2003 failing which your other Tele Nos.2243-6337 & 2243-5620 will be disconnected and other departmental action as well as legal action as well as legal action will be initiated against you without further notice."
(2.) The respondents have filed an opposition affirmed long ago. Advocate for the petitioners prays for an opportunity of filing reply. He says that the reply was not prepared, since the opposition was served long after the due date. I do not find any reason to adjourn the hearing of the matter. It seems to me that the writ petition can be decided even without looking into the opposition filed, since on the admitted facts, stated in the writ petition, only a pure question of law is to be decided. The question is whether for default in payment of the billed amounts with respect to one telephone, the authorities were entitled to threaten the petitioners with disconnection of their other telephones regarding which they were not defaulters.
(3.) The undisputed facts are these. In 1989 the petitioners received the bills for Rs. 81,111/- for cycle 6 of 1989 and Rs.66,628/- for cycle 8 of 1989 in connection with their telephone No.284214. They did not pay the bills. In November, 1989 that telephone was disconnected. They were enjoying service through two other telephones. In 1993 they moved the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for an order directing restoration of connection to that telephone. On February 24,1993 the Commission made an order restraining the authorities from disconnecting the other telephones. In 1995 that case was dismissed for default. Consequently in 1995 the authorities again called upon the petitioners to pay the bills. It was again said that in default of payment the other telephones would be disconnected. Nothing actually happened. In March, 2000 the authorities again issued notice that in default of payment of the old dues the other telephones would be disconnected according to provisions in Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. This time also nothing actually happened. When a similar notice was issued by the authorities on November 7th, 2003 the petitioners took out this writ petition.;