ORISSA VEGETABLE OIL COMPLEX LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions at the instance of the same petitioner in essence raise the identical question for decision and hence are disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner was the subscriber of four telephones and one telex, the telephone numbers being 51734, 53865 and 55061 in its office and 55482 at the residence of its Managing Director and the telex having the number 0675-267. The facts of O.J.C. No.2310/89 which are not disputed and have also been supplemented by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, are that the petitioner came before this Court earlier in O.J.C. No.2140/83 challenging the notice of disconnection issued on 30-6-88 by the Telecom. District Engineer, Department of Telecommunications, Bhubaneswar for outstanding dues as against telephone numbers 53865 and 51734. The telephones were disconnected and protest having been raised by the petitioner to the bills alleging excess metering, the department instituted an enquiry. The petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 13-7-88 directing that until the enquiry was completed by the Telecom. District Engineer, the petitioner's telephone No. 55061 and telex No. 0675-267 would not be disconnected, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000- within a week against the outstanding claims relating to telephone Nos. 53865 and 51734 which had already been disconnected and that the petitioner must also go on paying the current bills relating to telephone No. 55061 and telex No. 0675-267. It is the petitioner's case that it complied with the directions of this Court. After investigation by the department, the petitioner was communicated with two letters, both issued on 22-6-89, one relating to telephone No. 51734 and the other relating to telephone No. 53865. In both the letters annexed to OJC No. 2310/ 89 as Annexures-2 and 3 respectively, the department maintained that the cases had been examined in detail by the OGHT, Orissa on the basis of the reports received from the Field Units and other informations and that the meters and the line circuits of the telephones were found to be in order during the period in question. In r the first communication an arrear demand was raised for Rs. 33,489/- while in the second a demand was made for Rs. 1,1,327/and the petitioner was called upon to, pay the amounts so as to avoid disconnection of its other working connections. After receipt of such communications, the petitioner sent reply on 26-6-89 stating that it was not in position to pay the entire amount under demand immediately and offered to pay the total amount of Rs. 44,812/- covering the two bills in ten equal instalments. Subsequent however it disputed its liability to pay the amount and sent a letter in the nature of it notice through its advocate contending that during the period in question its volume of business was the lowest and its factory, at Kosinga had closed for more than two years and yet the meter readings showed do abnormal rise of STD calls leading to inflated bills. The petitioner also alleged perfunctoriness in the investigation made by the department and having not investigated into the manipulations of STD lines as alleged by it. In the notice, the petitioner urged the opposite party not to disconnect the telephones and not to take action for a fortnight so as to enable it to approach this Court for appropriate relief. The letter is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner has thereafter approached this Court seeking the relief of quashing Annexures-2 and 3, the communications made raising demands in respect-9f telephone Nos. 51734 and 53865, and restoration of the communication system that has been rendered inactive by the department. So far as O.J.C. No. 2033/89 is concerned, the facts are that a bill was raised for Rs. 19,407/- on 11-3-89 as the outstanding dues in respect of telephone No. 55482. The petitioner protested against the bill on 21-3-89 alleging defective metering and excess billing as also tampering with the telephone line by unauthorised persons since there was abnormal rise in the bill compared to the previous bills in respect of the telephone. On receipt of such protest, a communication was trade to the petitioner on 6-5-89 by the opposite party asking it to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,103.00 pending investigation on its protest. Another bill was sent to the petitioner on 11-5-89 for Rs. 38,845/- and on 6-6-89 a communication was made to him regarding his complaint of excess metering that on an analysis of fortnightly meter reading no positive spurt was noticed during the period and hence grant of any rebate was refused. The petitioner was directed to deposit the arrear amount of Rs. 38,845/- on or before 17-6-89 to avoid disconnection. On receipt of such communication the petitioner wrote back on 2-6-89 that the telephone bearing No. 55482 being a domestic line only it was not accepting the result of the investigation and requested that an expert might be engaged to find out the pilferage points and the genuineness of the meter and offered to arrange an expert jointly agreeable to both if any reply would be sent within fifteen days. In the case an order was passed on 12-7-89 directing the opposite party not to disconnect the telephone unless the same had already been disconnected. It is the agreed case between the parties that the telephone was disconnected on 12-7-89. The petitioner has also filed a petition for amendment on 15-7-89, to add a prayer for appointment of an arbitrator and to refer the dispute to him. The amendment is allowed.

(2.) The learned Standing Counsel (Central) appearing for the opposite party has justified the disconnection contending that since the petitioner failed to pay the arrears in respect of telephone Nos. 51734 and 53865 amounting to Rs. 44,812/-, the other telephones bearing Nos. 56061 and 55482 as also the telex bearing No. 0675-267 were disconnected in exercise of the powers under R.443 of the Telegraph Rules, 1951. It has also been contended by him that the department investigated into the allegations of excess metering and faulty line as regards the two telephones as directed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 2140/ 88 by its order dated 13-7-88 and after investigation both the meter and the line circuit were found to be in order in respect of both the telephones and the petitioner was intimated of such facts. The petitioner accepted the results of investigation and while agreeing to pay the demand, only requested for instalments by its letter dated 26-6-89 but thereafter recoiled from its stand and protested to pay the amount through the letter of its advocate and as such it could not be said that the petitioner disputed the bills.

(3.) Mr. G.S.Rath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged, placing reliance on S.7-B of the Telegraph Act (for brevity hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), that since the petitioner has raised the disputes regarding the quantum of bill amounts alleging false metering and tampering with the line circuit by unauthorised persons, the disputes could only be resolved by arbitration as provided for in the Section and that before decision on such disputes, no disconnection of telephones could be made. Besides, he has also contended that R.443 of the Rules does not authorise disconnection of the telex line at all.