IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9709 of 2010(K) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHAFI.P., S/O.MOHAMMED, 2/164J, PARIYAPURAM, PACHATTIRI P.O.,616105, VETTOM, TIRUR. BY ADV. MR.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, TIRUR. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER OF TELEPHONES, TIRUR. 3. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (TR-3) DOWNHILL, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER (TELEPHONES) MALAPPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. MR.V.R.KESAVAKAIMAL, SC, BSNL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.9709/2010-K ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the issuance of various bills including fee for delayed payment of the telephone bills, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. He is conducting a STD-PCO and was initially having five telephone numbers, viz. 2431794, 2426879, 2420794, 2431296 and 2425356. He was granted two more telephone connections with effect from 15/04/2009, with numbers 2431042 and 2431036. According to the petitioner, the respondents have now served various bills, even though at the relevant time they were not issuing the bills to him, and surcharge is also levied for delayed payment which is also under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The respondents have filed a statement. It is pointed out that the bills were being issued from time to time. The petitioner has not paid any amount against the telephone bills of numbers 2431036 and 2431042 even after a lapse of four months of issuing bills and hence, notices dated 09/03/2010 and 12/03/2010 were issued for claiming the dues as per the rules. W.P.(C). No.9709/2010 -:2:- 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are lapses on the part of the respondents in issuing the bills in time. 4. The learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that the petitioner was collecting amount from the public and could not have remained silent without remitting the charges. 5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he may be granted instalment facility going by the specific terms of Ext.P3, as he is unable to raise the entire amount now for a lumpsum payment. 6. In that view of the matter, if the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees fourty thousand only) within 15 (fifteen) days from today, and files appropriate representation before the Accounts Officer seeking for instalment payment, the same will be considered by the Accounts Officer and he will communicate the decision thereon within a further period of one month. The contention that the petitioner was not served the bills in time will also be considered by the Accounts Officer while passing the order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms