IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37363 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- U.K.MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.KUTTY HASSAN, PROPRIETOR, MALABAR GATEWAY COMMUNICATIONS 38/2406, PALAKKUNNATH HOUSE, KADAVATHRA, KALOOR ROAD, KOCHI. BY ADV. MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER ERNAKULAM. 2. PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER BSNL, KOCHI. 3. CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, BSNL, KOCHI. 4. TAHSILDAR(RR), VATAKARA. ADV. MR.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL FOR R1 TO 3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BEJOY CHANDRAN FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 37363 OF 2009 W ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was given two telephone connections for his office purpose by the 1st respondent. It is stated that there was an agreement between the 1st respondent and the petitioner that a discount of 20% will be given on every bills. Exts.P1 and P2 are bills. It is stated that he was paying the bills regularly. It is further stated that he was informed that the BSNL had withdrawn the discounts. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 request but it is stated that without considering the request, BSNL issued Ext.P4 bills. Ext.P5 is a statement showing that Rs.3,91,717/- is due from the petitioner. Petitioner made Ext.P6 application for disconnection and BSNL has disconnected it. After Ext.P5, it is stated that there is no bill. The petitioner is issued with Ext.P7 demand notice. The petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P7. 2. A counsel statement was filed. Exts.R1(a) to R1(o) bills are produced. It is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner misused/converted the telephone to his use by doing call centre WPC.37363/08 : 2 : business which came to the notice of the respondent only very late. Immediately, the vigilance wing of Ernakulam BSNL inspected the premises of the petitioner which is situated by the side of a bye lane of Kaloor-Kadavanthra road. It is further stated that it was noted that the centre was functioning in a clandestine manner. All the doors are kept closed and there is no board or any other means to identify the centre and it came to be known that the business of the petitioner was connecting calls from India to the Gulf countries and vice versa. It is stated that as of now, the total amount due is Rs.44,02,626/- for which Ext.P7 is issued. The petitioner filed a reply wherein it is, inter alia, stated that the documents produced are not true and concocted and BSNL already issued bills by deducting 20% from total bills. It is stated that Ext.P8 is a copy of the bill dated 7.1.2008, Ext.P9 is the bill dated 7.2.2008, Ext.P10 is the bill dated 7.3.2008, Ext.P11 is the bill dated 7.5.2008, Ext.P12 is the bill dated 7.7.2008 and Ext.P13 is the bill dated 10.7.2008 corresponding to some of the bills produced along with the counsel statement. It is further stated that the bills produced along with the counsel statement are not genuine. It is also stated that there is no due from the petitioner WPC.37363/08 : 3 : as per those bills. The petitioner is only liable to pay the last bill issued by the BSNL and the bill issued is without deducting 20% offered by the authority and the lines were disconnected and it is not working now and in such circumstances, the petitioner met with great loss, it is stated. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, learned standing counsel Sri.Mathews K. Philip and learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contentions. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner is having great financial difficulty and that if proper discount as agreed was given, the amount will be much less. Learned standing counsel submits that even if 20% was deducted, the amount will still come nearly Rs.34.5 lakhs. He further points out that the request of the petitioner for referring to arbitration is not supported by any written request against the bills. 4. Having regard to the totality of facts, I feel that the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the amount which according to the learned standing counsel represents the amount payable even after giving the entire 20% discount as claimed by the WPC.37363/08 : 4 : petitioner in six equal monthly instalments to make Rs.34 lakhs. In order to keep the revenue recovery proceedings in abeyance, the petitioner is to pay Rs.9 lakhs on or before 5.2.2009. The amount remaining to make up Rs.34 lakhs will be paid in five equal monthly instalments. The first of which is payable on or before the 5th working day of the succeeding month. If the petitioner represents his grievances in regard to the bills in question before the 2nd respondent after the payment of the third instalment, the 2nd respondent will consider the same in accordance with law and take a decision thereon within one month thereafter. If the petitioner does not comply with the deposit of Rs.9 lakhs or any other instalments, the petitioner will forfeit the benefits of this judgment and it will be open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. If the petitioner does not make the representation after the payment of the 3rd instalment, it will be open to the respondent to recover the entire amount. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks