IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1918 of 2009 (M/S) Sri Amit Manglik, S/O Sri Radhey Shyam Gupta, R/O 20 Mahadev Vihar, Niranjanpur, GMS Road, Dehradun, District Dehradun. …… Petitioner. Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. through General Manager, Telecom, District Dehradun and two others. … Respondents. Ms. Prabha Noliyal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. V.B.S.Negi, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the-respondents. Date November 16, 2009. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the 1st Broadband bill of Rs. 26,877.00 Approximate. Further, it has been prayed that writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent no. 1 to correct his application form and for changing his plan to Home Plan of 750 C+ broadband. Petitioner has also made a prayer to permit the petitioner to file fresh representation and to direct the respondent to decide the same in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is having a landline telephone bearing number 2520474 and on this telephone, he applied for broadband internet connection. The petitioner had the intention to have home plan 750 C+ (unlimited), but due to some misunderstanding, while filling the application form, the plan was wrongly mentioned as 700 C+. Due to aforesaid anomaly, the bill was raised as per business 700 plan, which was not applied for by the petitioner. The petitioner has already made a representation 2 to the authority concerned. The authority concerned has also reduced an amount of Rs. 10,449/- from the bill of Rs. 26,877/-. So far as the first relief sought by the petitioner is concerned, according to the petitioner himself, the facts are disputed and disputed question of fact cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction. The second relief is for changing the plan. The petitioner may make an application for changing the plan before the respondent-authorities, if permissible. The respondents may consider the application/representation of the petitioner in accordance with the prevailing Rules and may take a decision on the representation, if made by the petitioner, expeditiously as early as possible. The third relief sought by the petitioner is for permission to make a fresh representation before the authority concerned regarding his grievance. The representation of the petitioner has already been decided by the authority concerned. No fresh direction can be given for deciding the same. Having heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, I am of the view that the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. With the said observation, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 3 4 5 6 7