w W In: ma Ema mum oF'v'uAmYA pm331 Ar JABALyUR (31 unit Patttion (uanahus/Pmhimtion/mruoraxi/ mwamanto) af 1995 BETWEB‘! M/s MW; 01:1 Extraction Ltd.) a ampanyv duly in‘coxporat‘ed mder thayrividons of Indian ampanies Act, 1956 and having its registered cffme at Jolly Makers, N‘ar’iman Point, %mbay Mahara shtra and hamg their facwry‘'at Hxanpuri Industrial Area; Raip'ur, Tahsil and Digtrict Eaipu’r, M.P. 2. 31a Sur9§l Kuiér Manik. son of Lat¢ Sui. Dayalal mmik, aged abwt 66 ycars,‘ Authari sed mracto: af W’s M‘P; m1 Exttictian Ltds', xesi-dmt of dih‘otapara. Raipur at‘y. 'rah’sn aaFd'mstnct' mipur. M3. VER$JS ....?ETITIwERS 5 l. mica secretary of India, Lhlon Ministry th‘mugh the of Telecammiwtien, Telecom mi‘sa‘on. Samba: H’rawan, Ashoka Road, a»: Delhiluoou K2. $ri R.N. Goyal, The duef General Manager. M.P. drcla. Telecom (Jammission, Blopal‘ Telecom District managet. 0/0 me Telecom mstrict Manager. Raipur Auto E:o¢h'a}ga, 6.5. Foad, Raipur. Tahsil ad District Paipur. um. 94. Telecan Accounts mvisieaa Officer 1TB). manager, Office of 6.5. wad, ‘mpur, Tamil and mstrict. mp”, MQPQ g unmiwnml's MW‘HQ“ 9f WEI Ihe pgtitienans‘ above named most. re$ectfully x beg to suhnitx as widen- c o [‘2’ V awry Mr“. BP. Sharma, counse} fer fhe pe‘rificner-s. Mr. Raghavendm Pradhcm, Canfml Governmen? Counsei for The respondenfs. Heard bo‘fh ‘H’Ie‘ counsel. By fhe insfcm‘r wr'h‘ pe1f?ion under Am‘icles 226 & 227 of fhe Cons'ri‘rufion of India, The pefifioners have ques-Honed The propriefy of no?ices (Annexures ‘P—l & P-2), whereby The pe‘rifioners hava been asked 1‘0 deposh‘ *fhe securify amoun’r of R3.5,000/- & Rs.15,000/-l respec‘rively, agains‘r Telephone connecfion Nos.32%175, 323670, 324327 & 323674. Learned counsel for The pefi'fioners submifs The? if is True Thaf lhe bill of ‘lhe pe‘rii'ioner‘s are around abou'l' Rs.10,000/- per monl‘h,’buf The pe‘riiioners are regularly deposifing The amoun’i’, Therefore, There was no ground for fhe respondem‘s Toienhance The securiTy deposiT wiThouT hearing The peTiTianers. Learned counsel relied upon The decision of KarnaTaka High CcurT in The maTTer of K. Channappa and oThers vs. The Unicn of Erdia and oThers reporTed in AIR 19M Kanna‘l’ake 18i wherein The Cou T held-ThaT before issuance of The noTice of enhancemenT in The TacT"and circumsTances of The case, The Telephone auThoriTies oughT To have given opporTuniTy of hearing To The peTiTionere. XI—HC—22 Wm m W mam mam mmw ’ WW%’WW mw $af§m3nw 9-8‘2005 XI-HC—22 mm mm mwiwm $WW In View of The above circums’rnnces of fhe presenf c< a represen'mfion 1‘0 'responden period of four weeks from Ta decide The represen'r'a‘rion in ari poin’rs raised by The peTiTioni represenTaTion of The peTiTione insisT upon The deposiT of secur WiTh The above observ‘ ‘smnds disposed of. Soma ParTieg are enTiTled for o arTified copy of This order. order and looking To The facTs and Isa, The peTiTioners are direcTed To make T No.3 raising all Their poinTs wiThin a day and in Turn, respondenT No.3 shall i objecTive manner afTer Considering The ans! in accordance WiTh law. rs is decided The respondenTs should noT Ty amounT as per The noTices‘ JTion and direcTions, The wriT peTiTion Till The