IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 OP.No. 2169 of 2001(G) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S. CHIRAMEL AND CO., STOCK AND SHARE BROKERS, CUBEILE NO. 193, COCHIN STOCK EXCHANGE LTD., MES BULDING, KALOOR, COCHIN-17, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, C.V. JAYALAL, BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ERNAKULAM TELECOM DIST., COCHIN-16. 2. ACCOUNTS OFFICER (TR), ERNAKULAM TELECOMMUNICATIONS, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ERNAKULAM TELECOM DIST., COCHIN-16. 3. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOM, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-11. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO. 3649/2001 IN OP NO. 2169/2001 G. DISMISSED 25/03/2008. SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT. 19/2/98 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R2. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 22/4/99 SENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 25/6/99 SENT TO THE R3. EXT.P4 AND P5: COPY OF THE BILLS DT. 5/10/99 AND 5/6/00. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 28/08/00. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 10/08/00. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ======================= O.P.No.2169 of 2001-G. ======================= Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner establishment was a consumer of 'P Wire' / 'Hot line'. Accordingly private wire connection No.TPH 429 was allotted to the petitioner's office one at Perumbavoor and other at Ernakulam. The petitioner had remitted the annual rent and other dues totalling Rs.26,500/- as evidenced by Ext.P1. The connection was allowed in the month of July, 1998. According to the petitioner, the quality of the service was totally inferior and troublesome and in spite of several complaints in the matter there was no improvement in the facility given to him. Thereafter on 1.2.1999 the hot line connection granted to the petitioner was converted into Data line as per advice No.1866731 dated 1.2.1999. But there was no significant change in the service rendered to the petitioner. Ext.P2 is one of the complaints submitted by him to the authorities concerned. Ultimately by an application dated O.P.No.2169 of 2001-G. -: 2 :- 25.6.1999 he sought for disconnection of the facility with immediate effect. Ext.P3 is the said letter. Accordingly after receipt of the said letter the respondents cut off the hot line facility on 30.6.1999. Thereafter the petitioner has been using his ordinary telephone connection for his business purposes. 2. The dispute in this case is in respect of the bills issued by the respondents for the periods subsequent to the said disconnection which have been evidently issued without noticing the disconnection. Ext.P4 is the bill dated 5.10.1999 which is for the period 3.7.1999 to 29.6.2000 and Ext.P5 is the bill 5.6.2000 for another period. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 objection pointing out the fact that the hot line connected was disconnected as per his request. Thereafter he received Ext.P7 from the 2nd respondent stating that an amount of Rs.56,849/- is due in respect of TPH 429. In fact, in Ext.P7 it is recorded that the connection was closed on 8.12.1999. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that as far as the liability of the petitioner is concerned, once the disconnection was effected on 30.6.1999 there is no liability to pay O.P.No.2169 of 2001-G. -: 3 :- any amount as the facility was not availed of from that date. It is also pointed out that even going by Ext.P7 the connection was closed on 8.12.1999. 4. There is a clear contradiction between the bills Exts.P4 and P5 and Ext.P7. At any rate, since the petitioner has filed an objection Ext.P6 stating that he is not liable to pay any amount, the 2nd respondent was bound to enquire into the matter. That is not seen done apparently. Therefore Ext.P7 is quashed. The 2nd respondent will consider Ext.P6 and pass fresh orders in the matter after hearing the petitioner also. The same shall be done within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Till then no recovery shall be made against the petitioner based on Exts.P4 and P5 for any arrears in the matter of hot line service. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-