1. Appeal admitted. Notice made returnable forthwith. Respondents 1 and 2 waive service through learned Standing Counsel Mr. T. Sanjay. Third respondent waives service through learned Government Pleader. By consent, appeal called out for hearing and heard.

2. By a notice dated 17th August, 2001, (Ext. P3) addressed to P.V. Radhakrishnan, he was informed that this Courts Order for paying 50% of the total outstanding dues of Rs. 2,05,639 had not been complied with and, therefore, a threat was also given that his telephone would be disconnected. In that notice, by endorsements at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3, Telephone Nos. 310527 and 723527 of P.V. Chandra Bose and Telephone No. 723389 of Mohammed Koya Moopan were also threatened to be disconnected for non payment of the dues.

3. The Original Petition was filed by the said Radhakrishnan, Chandra Bose and Mohammed Koya Moopan to challenge the order at Ext. P3. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that R.416 of the Indian Telegraph Rules read with R.443 permits such action. We are unable to accept this view. What R.443 says is that, if a subscriber has more than one telephone connection, the telephone department would be entitled to disconnect all telephones of the same subscriber for default of any one or more telephone lines. R.416(2)(b)(iii) of the Rule provides that in cases of a defaulting subscriber, an application for installation of a new line by a relative or associate using the same premises may be refused. The expression of relative and associate are defined in the rule inclusively and broadly.

4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that a combined reading of R.416(2)(b)(iii) and 443 would enable the department to disconnect the telephone lines of all subscribers residing or carrying on business in the same premises so long as they are relatives or associates of a defaulting subscriber. We are unable to agree with this contention. R.443 does not have this concept of relative and associate, nor is it possible to read this concept from R.416 into R.443. As far as the disconnection of existing telephone lines is concerned, that is permissible only in respect of defaults of the same subscriber. That does not extend to disconnection of the telephone lines of any subscriber who is not in default.

5. We have already dismissed the appeal brought by the first appellant P.V.Radhakrishnan. As far as the other two appellants, Chandra Bose and Mohammed Koya Moopan, appellants 2 and 3, are concerned, in our view, they are different subscribers and their telephones could not have been disconnected by the Telephone Department for the defaults in payment of dues of Radhakrishnan, irrespective of whether they are installed in the same premises or they are relatives or associates of Radhakrishnan.

In the result, we allow the appeals of appellants 2 and 3, Chandra Bose and Mohammed Koya Moopan, and direct the department to reconnect their telephone Nos. 310527, 723527 and 723389 upon payment of all amounts due by them as subscribers for their irrespective telephones, and upon their continuing to pay regularly their bills. This order is without prejudice to the right of the department to take any steps in law to recover the dues from all the appellants.