IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 24368 of 2006(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- JOSEPH T.MUNDADAN, MUNDADAN HOUSE, CHURCH NAGAR, CN-170, ANGAMALY 683 572. BY ADV. SRI.PIUS C.MUNDADAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, SANCHAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL GMT (BSNL), BSNL BHAVAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682016. 3. THE COMMERCIAL OFFICER II,TELECOM, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL GMT (BSNL), KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682016. 4. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (TR-IV),BSNL, OFFICE OF THE PGMTD, ERNAKULAM, CATHOLIC CENTRE, KOCHI 682031. 5. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (TR-V), BSNL, OFFICE OF THE PGMTD, ERNAKULAM, CATHOLIC CENTRE, KOCHI 682031. 6. JACOB JOHN, MIG PLOT NO.405, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 36. 7. JOSE VAKAYIL,V.T.J.ENCLAVE,KUNDANNOOR, MARADU P.O. 682304. * ADDL. R8 IMPLEADED svs .........2/.... 8. CORE ECO FIBRES (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JOSE VAKAYIL, V.J.T. ENCLAVE, KUNDANNOOR, MARADU P.O., PIN - 682 304. * IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18/09/2006 IN I.A. NO.13033/2006. R2 TO R5 ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVAKAIMAL, SC, BSNL R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO.24368/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM FOR TELEPHONE CONNECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS. P2: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTE DATED 25/07/1990 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS. P3: COPY COF THE LETTEER DATED 13/11/1995 TO THE COMMERCIAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM TELE COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT. P4: COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF THE COMMERCIAL OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 26/12/1995. P5: COPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER DATED 01/03/1996 SENT TO THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER TR-1, KOCHI - 31. P6: COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/09/1996. P6(a):COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IN RESPECT OF EXT. P6. P7: COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL DATED 11/02/1997. P7(a):COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL DATED 11/04/1997. P7(b):COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL DATED 11/06/1997. P7(c):COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL DATED 11/08/1997. P7(d):COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL DATED 11/02/1998. P7(e):COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL DATED 11/04/1998. P7(f):COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL DATED 11/02/1999. P7(g):COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL DATED 11/04/1999. P7(h):COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL DATED 11/02/2000. P7(i):COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL DATED 11/04/2000. P7(j):COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL DATED 11/08/2000. P7(k):COPY OF THE TELEPHONE BILL DATED 11/10/2000. svs ..............2/-..... ....2... WPC. NO.24368/2006 P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30/10/2000 FOR TRANSFER OF TELEPHONE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COMMERCIAL OFFICER. P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/11/2000 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE COMMERCIAL OFFICER. P10: COPY OF THE BILL DATED 11/08/2001 SENT TO THE PETITIONER AT HIS ANGAMALY ADDRESS. P11: COPY OF THE REGISTERED LETTER DATED 23/08/2001 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COMMERCIAL OFFICER II. P11(a):COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P11 BY THE COMMERCIAL OFFICER II. P12: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/01/2004 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS TO THE PETITIONER. P13: COPY OF THE LETTER FROM CORE ECO FIBRES (P) LTD., SENT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ALONG WITH EXT.P12 LETTER DATED 28/01/2004. P14: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 02/03/2004 CAUSED TO BE SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ACOUNTS OFFICER, TR-V. P14(a):COPY OF A D CARD ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF EXTS.P14 BY RESPONDENT NO.2. P14(b):COPY OF THE A D CARD ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF EXTS.P14 BY RESPONDENT NO.3. P14(c):COPY OF THE A D CARD ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF EXTS.P14 BY RESPONDENT NO.5. P15: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/06/2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ACCOUNTS OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER. P15(a):COPY OF THE BILL DATED 07/08/2003. P15(b):COPY OF THE BILL DATED 07/10/2006. P16: COPY OF THE DEFAULTER NOTICE DATED 24/07/2006 ISSUED BY THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER IV. BSNL. Svs ..........3/-... ...3... WPC. NO.24368/2006 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(a):COPY OF THE BILL DATED 11/12/2000. R4(b):COPY OF THE BILL DATED 11/10/1999. R4(c):COPY OF THE BILL DATED 11/06/2000. R4(d):COPY OF THE BILL DATED NIL. R4(e):COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30/10/2000. R4(f):COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER DATED 30/10/2000. R4(g):COPY OF THE LETTER NO.COMI/CO-II/315986/12/00-01 DATED 14/11/2000. R4(h):COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21/08/2001. R4(i):COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/06/2006. R4(j):COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24/07/2006. R4(k):COPY OF THE RECORD DATED 07/10/2006. R4(l):COPY OF THE BILL DATED 07/08/2003. R4(m):COPY OF THE BILL DATED 07/10/2003. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 24368 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 23rd day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand for telephone charges, which, according to the petitioner, is not due from him insofar as the petitioner has not used the telephone. The respondents relied on certain documents alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner in respect of the telephone connection for demanding the telephone charges from the petitioner. The petitioner disputes that the signatures in the documents with the respondents are that of the petitioner. The signatures available in the documents of the BSNL are not comparable to the admitted signature of the petitioner. In fact, they have no comparison whatsoever. Insofar as the respondents are not able to prove the document as one signed by the petitioner, on the basis of that document, no telephone charges can be recovered from the petitioner. When this was pointed out to the learned counsel for the BSNL, the counsel, after getting instructions from the party, submits that in view of the discrepancy in the signature, the respondents may be permitted to proceed against respondents 6 to 8 for recovery of the telephone charges in question. In the above circumstances, the demand and proceedings for recovery against the petitioner are quashed. However, this would not stand in the way of respondents 2 to 5 proceeding W.P(C) No. 24368 of 2006 -: 2 :- against respondents 6 to 8 for recovery of the amounts proposed to be recovered from the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/