MADAN LAL TAYAL AND OREM KUMAR TAYAL Vs. M T N L

JUDGEMENT

(1.) it appears that the father and sons are staying in the same premises and are carrying on same work. Telephone connections have been taken in the name of the father as also in the names of the sons. The telephone in the name of the father went into arrears of over Rs. 10,000.00 . The amount not having been paid the telephone was dis-connected. There- after, the telephones of the sons were also disconnected on the ground that arrears had not been paid. A request in writing was made by the father asking for reconnection of one telephone atleast on the ground that they will be able to carry on their work smoothly and that he was sick also and wanted medical attention. On this request the telephone was reconnected. He had also stated that he would settle the claim of the department. Inspite of that no claim was settled. The telephones were disconnected and this petition has been filed to challenge the same. The contention of the learned counsel is that the father and sons are, independent and they have never been in common. He further submits that the telephones in the names of the sons could not be disconnected for default of the father. In fact, the petitioner had completely suppressed these facts in the petition. There is no averment that the telephones had earlier been disconnected and on request of the father one telephone was reconnected when an assurance had been given that the bills would be settled. These facts have been brought out in the Counter affidavit. Since the father and sons are working together the department is authorised to disconnect the telephones under Section 443 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The petition has no merits and is dismissed.

(2.) As regards the first, the act of disconnection is not a direct restriction on the freedom of the subscriber to carry on trade. Phone is disconnected to collect dues and any restrictions on trade are incidental to this aim. Also this restric- tion, if any exists because of the fault of the subscriber and can be remedied by his action. No imposition of restrictions by the department is envisaged.

(3.) Thus, it is not violative of Article 19(i)(g). Another point which can be raised is that the sons have not defaulted and being separate subscribers enter into 2 separate contracts with MTNL. So how can one be held responsible for the breach made by the other ? Rule 443 was enacted so as to prevent subscribers from not paying dues owed by them to the utility. MTNL is a utility providing an essential service and for its effective functioning it is required that all amounts owed to it are paid immediately, otherwise it would have large amount of uncollected dues and its business would be defeated. Rule 443 operates as a measure of pressurising the subscriber to pay and to ensure that the department is not cheated.