Surjit Singh vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd

3. The facts of the case are that the appellant and his wife are living together at their residence in Rajouri Garden, Delhi. At that residence, there is one telephone line bearing No. 5121187 in the name of appellant Surjit Singh and there is also another telephone line bearing No. 5416493 at the same residence in the name of the appellant's wife. There is a third telephone line bearing No. 3265301 in the name of the appellant and installed at the business premises of the appellant at 1195, Chahrahat Building, Jama Masjid, Delhi.

4. It appears that there were arrears of telephone dues in connection with line No. 5416493 which was in the name of the appellant's wife. For non- payment of the telephone dues in connection with this line, the other two lines in the name of the appellant being 5121187 at his residential premises and line No. 3265301 at his business premises were disconnected.

5. The contention of the appellant was that the telephone lines in his own name being line No. 5121187 at his residence and line No. 3265301 at his business premises should not be disconnected on account of non-payment of dues in connection with the line in the name of his wife being line No. 5416493. He contended that he and his wife are two separate legal entities, and he could not be penalized for the fault of his wife.

6. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 25.9.2001 and his appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court was also dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 10.1.2002. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

13. As stated above, in the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, it is not mentioned that the father was economically dependent on the petitioner. Hence, the aforesaid decision can be of no help in deciding the present dispute, since necessary factual details are lacking.

(emphasis supplied) We respectfully agree with the view expressed above.

29. Also, it would make no difference whether the telephone line is at the residence or at the business premises, even if the two are entirely separate. Hence in our opinion both the telephone lines in the name of the appellant, one at his residence and the other at his business premises, can be disconnected for non-payment of the dues in connection with the line in the name of his dependent wife.

36. To explain this it may be mentioned that the Brahmanas state that the prescribed Yupa (sacrificial post for tying the sacrificial animal) must be made of Khadir Wood. However, Khadir wood is weak while the animal tied may be restive. Hence, the Mimansa principle (stated above) permits that the Yupa can be made of Khadar wood which is strong. Now this substitution is being made despite the fact that the prescribed wood is Khadir, but this prescription is only subordinate or accessory to the performance of the yagya, which is the main object. Hence, if it comes in the way of the yagya being performed, it can be modified or substituted.

39. In the present case we are of the opinion that the Linga (Lakshana) principle will apply.

49. The Pranabhrit maxim gkFR'r U;k; states :

Maxwell also states:

(emphasis supplied)

58. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.