1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1531/1999 P.C.Jain Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited DATE OF ORDER --- September 29,2010 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr. Sanjay Joshi, for the petitioner Petitioner also present in person Mr.S.N.Soorwal, for the respondent BY THE COURT (1) By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for restoration of the telephone facility and to direct the respondent to continue the telephone and further not to take any action for disconnection of telephone service/facility in future. The petitioner has also prayed for awarding cost of the writ petition and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, for illegal disconnection which resulted in lack of communication with his clients. (2) The facts, in brief, of the writ petition, as per the petitioner, are that the petitioner who was/is a practising Advocate in the Rajasthan High Court and was having standing of more than thirty years at the time of filing the writ petition and was Standing Counsel for various Departments, had been granted telephone connection No. 369710 (at present the telephone number is 2369710) under the OYT Category. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner had been paying bills regularly and the last bill dated 15.2.1999 which was for the rental period between 1.3.1999 to 30.4.1999 (billing period 16.11.1998 to 15.1.1999), was duly paid by him and nothing remained outstanding against the petitioner. On 17.3.1999, on the aforesaid telephone, a 2 tape message was heard by the petitioner that “your telephone services have been taken out temporarily”. In this connection, the petitioner sent a telegram to the respondent on 23.3.1999 but nothing was done. (3) In the reply filed by the respondent, preliminary objection has been raised to the effect that the petitioner has concealed material fact from the Court and has not produced the notice dated 2.2.1999 (Anx.R-2) sent to him in respect of Telephone No.512535(New)/375965 (old) installed at the same place in the name of his brother Mr.R.C.Jain in respect of which the petitioner was nominated as nominee and when the outstanding bills of above telephone were not paid for long period, notice was sent on 2.2.1999 to the petitioner with the demand letter but he failed to give any reply nor the outstanding amount was paid as such, his telephone No.369710(New No.2369710) was disconnected. (4) The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply in which it is stated that the respondent be put to strict proof as to on what date, telephone No.375965 was transferred and from what date, the bills have not been paid by the holder/subscriber of the telephone i.e. R.C.Jain. The petitioner denied receipt of the notice dated 2.2.1999. It is then stated in the rejoinder that the petitioner is no doubt elder brother of Shri R.C.Jain but nomination would not constitute any liability to be fastened under any law. The petitioner further stated that it appears that there was some handshake between the telephone department employees and Shri R.C.Jain that in spite of non payment of the bills, the telephone was allowed to continue for a pretty long time and for the said fault of the Department, the petitioner cannot be made liable. The nomination by a telephone subscriber does not confer any liability on the petitioner. A subscriber of the telephone can only be made liable and not the user of the telephone. (5) There is no dispute that at the time of disconnection of the telephone, 3 there was no oustanding against the petitioner as subscriber of Telephone No. 369710 (new No.2369710) and presently also, there is no outstanding against the petitioner. (6) Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of disconnection of the telephone, there was no outstanding bill against the said telephone No.369710 (new No.2369710) and presently also, there is no outstanding dues in respect of telephone No.2369710 of which the petitioner is the subscriber. Counsel further submits that the disconnection of telephone for the reason of outstanding bills against telephone number of his brother R.C.Jain is arbitrary and the same is also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed as well as cost of the writ petition and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. (7) Submission of counsel for the respondent is that the disconnection was rightly made since there were dues in respect of the telephone in the name of R.C.Jain, of which the petitioner is the nominee. Counsel for the respondents also submits that the unpleasant action of disconnection was taken to save the department from financial loss but he is unable to show that when there is no outstanding bill against the telephone number of the petitioner then, why disconnection of petitioner's telephone No.369710 (new No.2369710) was made. (8) I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered rival submission of counsel for the parties. (9) In my view, the disconnection of telephone No. 369710 (new No.2369710) when there was/is no outstanding against the said telephone number, which is subscribed by the petitioner, is arbitrary and the same is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to compensation but the petitioner being a practising 4 Advocate of this Court and presently having about 40 years of standing, forgoes compensation on the assurance of the counsel for the respondent that the disconnection would only be made after notice to the petitioner in case there are any dues outstanding against his telephone No.2369710. (10) The writ petition is disposed of, as indicated above. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. गोpa ल