- (1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Anand Gums Industries has expressed the grievance that non-petitioners are threatening to disconnect the telephone connection of the petitioner's firm and have already disconnected telephone No. 41086 on 18.1.1992 on the ground that some dues remained to be paid by Anand Gum Chemical Industries. It has been prayed that respondents may be restrained from disconnecting the telephone connections in the name of the petitioner's firm and may be directed to restore the connection of telephone No. 41086. Notices have been issued to the respondents. Mr. P.P. Choudhary put in appearance on behalf of respondents filed the reply and affidavit.
(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's firm has no concern with Anand Gum Chemical Industries and any default on the part of the later will not make liable firm for disconnection of the telephone connection. Mr. Choudhary learned counsel for respondents submitted that the connection of the petitioner that no notice was issued has no strength because notice is not required. He emphasised that Rule 193 of the Indian Telegraphic Rules empowers the respondents to disconnect the connections of the sister concern of firm, if the connected firm with same partners is making any default in payment of the dues.
(3.) It is pertinent to note that in the reply, no justification worth the name has been shown in disconnecting telephone No. 91086 without issuing notice. In the additional affidavit a notice Annexure R/3 meant to be for telephone No. 41955 been mentioned and it is stated that after the notice it was disconnected. At the time of arguments Mr. Choudhary submitted that per mistake that paragraph has been inserted in additional affidavit otherwise it has no relevancy for the present purpose. Rule 993 of the Rules does not come in picture to rest the power of disconnection because the partners of the two firms namely Anand Gum Industries and Gums Chemicals Industries are not the same. True it is that out of the five partners in the former and six in the later, three are the same persons, but that does not mean that two firms are the same so as to make one responsible for the payment of charges of the other. In replay the names of various partners of the two firms have been given.;