S.B. Wad, J.

(1) It appears that the father and sons are staying in the same premises and are carrying on same work. Telephone connections have been taken in the name of the father as also in the names of the sons. The telephone in the name of the father went into arrears of over Rs. 10,000.00 . The amount not having been paid the telephone was dis-connected. There- after, the telephones of the sons were also disconnected on the ground that arrears had not been paid. A request in writing was made by the father asking for reconnection of one telephone atleast on the ground that they will be able to carry on their work smoothly and that he was sick also and wanted medical attention. On this request the telephone was reconnected. He had also stated that he would settle the claim of the department. inspire of that no claim was settled. The telephones were disconnected and this petition has been filed to challenge the same. The contention of the learned counsel is that the father and sons are, independent and they have never been in common. He further submits that the telephones in the names of the sons could not be disconnected for default of the father. In fact, the petitioner had completely suppressed these facts in the petition. There is no averment that the telephones had earlier been disconnected and on request of the father one telephone was reconnected when an assurance had been given that the bills would be settled. These facts have been brought out in the Counter affidavit. Since the father and sons are working together the department is authorised to disconnect the telephones under Section 443 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The petition has no merits and is dismissed.

ARTICLE Suishta Saigal B-79, defense Colony New Delhi-24 Object Can a telephone of a person be disconnected for recovery of rent from a relative. A land mark judgment adjudicated upon by Delhi High Court has thrown up many questions, in a thinly litigated area-telephones. In the case of Madan Lal Tayal, Prem Kumar Tayal v. MTNL- a telephone in the name of the father had an unpaid bill amounting to Rs. 4105.00 . The phone was disconnected. On the request of the father-Madam Lal Tayal and his assurance to pay the bill the connection was restored. Another bill amounting to Rs. 6322.00 remained unpaid. Therefore, the phone was again disconnected. Both the bills remained unpaid. Thereafter Mtnl disconnected phones in the name of the two sons of Madan Lal. Phone connection of one son was restored. The plaintiff has come up in a writ petition under Article 226 against the order of MTNL. While dismissing the writ petition the court held that Rule 443 of Indian Telegraph act could be extended so as to apply to the sons and thus their phones could be disconnected on account of non-payment of bills by the father.
Rule 443. "On or before any due date for payment of rental or other charges due, the subscriber fails to make the payment, then any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him may be disconnected without notice". That is, the telephone department has been expressly granted power by the legislature to disconnect not only the phone with regard to which default in payment is made but any or all phones belonging to that subscriber But the High Court has extended the operation of Rule 443 to include in its ambit not only the immediate defaulting subscriber but also any immediate relation of the subscriber.

THE two questions that arise for consideration are : Is the act of Mtnl arbitrary and against all tenants of Natural Justice so as to be vocative of Article 14- I.I Freedom of trade and business is restricted and is Therefore, vocative of Article 19(1)(g).

(2) As regards the first, the act of disconnection is not a direct restriction on the freedom of the subscriber to carry on trade. Phone is disconnected to collect dues and any restrictions on trade are incidental to this aim. Also this restriction, if any exists because of the fault of the subscriber and can be remedied by his action. No imposition of restrictions by the department is envisaged.

(3) Thus, it is not vocative of Article 19(i)(g). Another point which can be raised is that the sons have not defaulted and being separate subscribers enter into 2 separate contracts with MTNL. So how can one be held responsible for the breach made by the other Rule 443 was enacted so as to prevent subscribers from not paying dues owed by them to the utility. Mtnl is a utility providing an essential service and for its effective functioning it is required that all amounts owed to it are paid immediately, otherwise it would have large amount of uncollected dues and its business would be defeated. Rule 443 operates as a measure of pressurising the subscriber to pay and to ensure that the department is not cheated.

(4) Thus, here in a case like the present one, due to the fraud being committed by the petitioners, the department is being cheated out of the money owed to it. The father has not yet paid the dues and seems unwilling to do so, but yet he can enjoy the benefits of a phone because his son is a subscriber. The very purpose and objective of enacting Rule 443 was to avoid this type of situation. Hence, the decision of the court to extend the ambit of Rule 443 includes not only the defaulting subscriber but also his close relative, in such cases of fraud. So has also been held by the Madras High Court in the following cases : S. Thangan v. Madras Telephone.

(5) Rule 443 is comprehensive enough to delete such cases of fraud. Mother represents the interests of the minor sons in partnership and can be proceeded against for arrears and Therefore, her phone can also be disconnected. K. Ammanulah v. Madras Telephone. Son of defaulting subscriber is also liable to have his telephone connection disconnected on account of non-payment of dues by the father, of a separate phone. Zarina Begham v. General Manager, Madras Telephone. Wife of defaulting subscriber is not entitled to any telephone connection till the arrears of her husband towards the department are cleared. Does the implication of the judgment go to the extent of disconnecting the telephones of any close relative, who is not the defaulting party and has a right to be an independent subscriber. Court has left unanswered the question of the category of persons whose phones can be disconnected in lieu of default made by a particular subscriber. How far can Mtnl justify that blanket power to disconnect phones of any subscriber