Yogeshwar Dayal, J.

1. The petitioner had a telephone number 391261 installed at his residence 34, Dhaula Kuan. This telephone was installed in August, 1983. On 5th December, 1983, the petitioner requested that this telephone may be shifted to his new residence situated at 55 DDA (SFS) Flats, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. On 20th December, 1983, the telephone was directed to be shifted to the new residence of the petitioner: that the telephone at Dhaula Kuan was actually disconnected on 23rd December, 1983, and was installed at Hauz Khas on 14th July, 1984.

2. The petitioner now is aggrieved by a bill which is still subsisting claiming rental for the period 24.12.83 to 9.1.84 during which period there was no telephone installed either at Dhaula Kuan or at Hauz Khas residence of the petitioner. Earlier the bill was for a longer period but it appears to have been settled and there is no dispute now. We are, thus, left with only this grievance of the petitioner for the period for which no telephone was installed. Its total comes to Rs. 67. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent concedes that the bill has been wrongly given. The proportionate rental for this period comes to Rs. 67. In view of the contention that telephone was not installed during this period, the respondents are directed not to charge the aforesaid amount for the aforesaid period.

3. This is one of the unfortunate case where telephone subscriber has unnecessarily been billed for much a longer period and he had to take recourse to this Court and inspite of repeated requests the bill was not corrected and the petitioner was forced to pay the same. In the circumstances, the respondents are burdened with Rs. 200 as costs for petitioners approaching this Court.

4. Petition is disposed of accordingly.