Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) IN a matter of excess billing by the telephone department for the telephone No. 45105 (old number 23705) installed at the residence of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Hon 'ble Court by filing Writ Petition No. 4872/1992 which was decided by this Court vide order dt. 07.02.1994 following the earlier judgments of this Court rendered in SBC Writ Petition No. 5760/1991 (Indian Gum Industries v. Union of India and Anr.) decided on 15.12.1993 and SBC Writ Petition No. 5961/1992 (Shailash Patwa v. Union of India and Ors.) decided on 21.12.1993 and the matter was sent to the committee of the respondent telephone department with a direction to hear the petitioner in person and decide the case according to law. The petitioner earlier submitted solvent security in compliance to the order dt. 15.09.1992 passed in the petitioner 's Writ Petition No.4872/1992 and that was made continued till the matter is finally decided by the concerned committee. This Court further directed that the Committee shall decide the case of the petitioner within a period of four months and not later than four months. In pursuance of the order of this Court dt. 07.02.1994 given in Writ Petition No.4872/1992, the petitioner 's matter was considered by the Excess Metering Case Committee vide order dt. 08.02.1996. The petitioner has challenged this order dt. 08.02.1996 by which though the Committee specifically held that the calls metered in 2 fortnights from 31.01.1991 to 15.02.1991 and 16.02.1991 to 28.02.1991 were very much on the higher side as compared to calling rate of other fortnights of the disputed bills. The Committee also clearly held that there appears a possibility of false metering during these fortnights because of some technical fault which passed unnoticed. Thereafter, the Committee held that on the basis of detailed examination, the members of the Committee reached the conclusion that there might be possibility of false metering in the above said 2 fortnights billing. However, despite this finding, the Committee decided to charge the subscriber for each of the 2 fortnights equivalent to 7411 metered in the fortnight ending on 30.01.1991 and total calls chargeable in the bimonthly, 2008 (1) WLN Sampath Singh Bandawat (Dr.) v. Union of India and Ors. 83 period ending on 15.02.1991 and 15.04.1991 should have been 22074 and 10112 respectively. Thereafter, the Committee decided to grant rebate of 10606 and 19126 calls to the subscriber in the bills dt. 01.03.1991 and 01.05.1991 respectively. (This includes the rebate of 10000 and 18000 calls already granted). Ultimately, the Committee was of the view that so far as the rebate to be granted in the bill dt. 01.03.1991 is concerned, that is within the financial powers of T.D.M. but the rebate justified in the bill dt. 01.05.1991 was beyond the financial powers of T.D.M. and, therefore, the Committee made a proposal for submission to the G.M.(W).
(3.) IN view of the above, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the Committee did not have the jurisdiction to decide the matter after four months in view of the specific direction given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4872/1992 on 07.02.1994 and with expiry of period of 4 months, the respondent department lost its right to recover any amount from the petitioner.;