IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10034 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.07.2009 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Petitioner Versus Amar Singh and another Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner ….. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) The petitioner filed an application before respondent No.1 claiming an amount of Rs.28,119/- for use of telephone No.240346. It was case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 is subscriber of the telephone referred to above, he has not made payment against bills dated 13.5.2004, 3.7.2005 and 13.7.2004. Telephone connection was disconnected on 11.8.2004. Bill amount, with interest, was claimed. Lok Adalat after taking note of various rules/ instructions, which were required to be followed by the petitioner, vide order dated 15.5.2008, came to a conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to recover only an amount of Rs.1743/-. Thereafter, petitioner filed a review application, which was also dismissed on 9.4.2009. This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to the above said orders. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court feels that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Civil Writ Petition No.10034 of 2009 After notice to respondent No.1 by the Lok Adalat, he appeared and put up his objection, in which it was stated that his average bill for the last so many months varies between Rs.200 and Rs.400/-. He further stated that after receipt of bills showing higher amount, he made several representations to verify use of telephone, by stating that it may have been misused by somebody else. No action was taken. Record further shows that for three months in dispute, telephone use, was very excessive. As per instructions of the department in such like cases, the department is supposed to warn the subscriber of the telephone and if need be verification/ investigation can be done to know as to whether telephone calls have been made by the subscriber or someone else. Despite above said instructions, no action was taken. By taking note of parameters, as mentioned above, respondent No.2 refused amount claimed and awarded an amount of Rs.1743/-. This Court feels that in view of facts of this case, amount awarded is perfectly justified. For any lapse on the part of the department, respondent No.1 cannot be made to suffer. Respondent No.2 has rightly held that when there is spurt in telephone calls, the matter was required to be investigated at the level of the department. But nothing was done despite instructions existing in that regard. Review application was also not maintainable. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. 10.07.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 2