IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 22631 of 2000 Between: M/s Transgene Bio-tak Limited a Company incor. under Co. Ac/ Rep. by Director, Sri P.N.Murthy, S/o. Raghunath Babu, R/o. C-44, Madhuranagar, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Accounts Officer, Central Area, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.O/o. P.G.M., T.D. Suryalok Complex, Hyderabad. 2 The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Hyderabd Telecom District, Suryalok Complex, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the demand note issued by the first respondent raising a demand for Rs. 7,29,567/- for the bills claimed to be pending in respect of Telephone No.3310368 from 1-7-1993 to 24- 4-1995 as illegal, void and unenforceable and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A.RAMANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for Central Government appearing for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner company that it was having a telephone connection bearing No.3310368. While so, respondents issued a demand notice to the petitioner in respect of the closed telephone No.3310368 stating that if the outstanding due of Rs.7,29,567/- is not paid the other working telephone Nos.3748060; 3739776 & 3751529 will be disconnected. Apart from taking action for recovery of the said dues, particulars of the dues for the period from 01-07-1993 to 11-11-1994 were also furnished. It is stated that the petitioner made a representation, dated 31-10-2000, before the 1st respondent with regard to the said demand to give one month time to trace out the necessary supporting documents pertaining to payment of the said amount on the ground that as per the records of the petitioner there were no outstanding dues. After filing the said representation on 31-10-2000 Writ Petition has been filed on 18-11- 2000 on the ground that without giving one month time for verification they were demanding to pay the said amount and threatening to disconnect the telephone connection. 3. As sufficient time has been elapsed; as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is no more; and as the notice sent was returned with an endorsement ‘addressee left’ I am of the opinion that there is no point in keeping the Writ Petition pending. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit any supporting documents, if any, in proof of payment of the said amount. It is open for the respondents to recover the said amount from the petitioner in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 04th March, 2008 Tsy To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SAM}