IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1187 of 2005 Sanjay Kumar Shahi, son of late Shiv Shankar Prasad Shai, resident of shop no. 7, Hem Plaza, Fraser Road, P.s. Kotwali and District Patna ….. Petitioner Versus 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. through the General Manager, Telephone Bhavan, R Block, Patna 2. General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Telephone Bhavan, R Block, Patna 3. Principal General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Telephone Bhawan, R. Block, Patna For the Petitioner : Mrs. Archna Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. J.P. Karn, Sr. Advocate 6 25.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Respondents. Petitioner seeks a direction for replacement / repair of the WLL set sold to him by the Respondents and also to produce the insurance policy as insurance premium was charged from him. Grievance of the petitioner is that he purchased the WLL set from the respondents and was allotted number 2026712 Rs. 20/- per month was being charged as insurance premium, which was being paid regularly by the petitioner. However, the aforesaid WLL set stopped working from 25.8.2004 which could 2 not be rectified despite a written complaint to the Respondent no. 2. Upon the complaint and reminder made thereafter, the petitioner was requested to contact the Respondent no. 3. However, till date neither the telephone set was repaired nor any copy of insurance policy, for which petitioner was being charged, had been given to him. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the WLL set have been removed from the service as the same has become out- dated and was not working properly. A counter affidavit has been filed making a categorical statement that due to mistake committed data feeding in the computer, the department has charged insurance premium against the aforesaid WLL set till September, 2004, which was not at all applicable under the relevant scheme. In the circumstances, it has been stated that the Respondents are ready to refund the insurance amount collected wrongly from the petitioner along with interest which would be applicable in such cases. However, it has also been stated that the charges 3 against cost of WLL set cannot be refunded to the petitioner as he has kept the WLL set with him. In response thereto, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was never informed that the WLL system is outdated and would not working. He was never asked to returned the set. Accordingly, this writ application is being disposed of in view of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the Respondents with a direction to return the entire amount received by the authorities as against the head of Insurance premium along with the interest which would be applicable in such cases and also the petitioner would be at liberty to return back the WLL set within three weeks along with a certified copy of this order. In such case the Respondents would be obliged to refund the cost of the WLL set charged from the petitioner. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)