SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) WRIT petition is filed questioning the impugned Notice INV/ 30248/ def. dt. 18-2-92 issued by the respondent herein seeking to disconnect the petitioners telephone No. 223627 on the ground that there are arrears outstanding against the telephone bearing No. 30248 pertaining to his mother. I am not here called upon to enter the merits with regard to the arrears claimed against telephone number 30248 pertaining to the petitioners mother. But, what is intriguing is the proposed action of the respondent in seeking to disconnect the petitioners telephone on the ground that his mother has defaulted in payment of the arrears to the tune of Rs. 1,02,345. 00 (Rupees one lakh two thousand three hundred and forty five only) pertaining to her telephone No. 30248. Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules which were framed under the rule making power under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, empowers the concerned authority to disconnect the telephone of a subscriber in default of payment. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no default in payment on the part of the petitioner.

( 2 ) MR. V. Sriranga Rao, the learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that inasmuch as there are arrears outstanding against the telephone of petitioners mother, the petitioner is vicariously liable for the said arrears and as such, for non-payment of the arrears outstanding against the petitioners mother, the telephone of the petitioner can be disconnected. I apprehend that I cannot accede to this contention of the learned standing counsel for the Central Government for the simple reason that the petitioner and his mother are having two different telephone and as citizens of India, they are entitled to be subscribers of telephones independently and merely because there is a relationship of mother and son and as the mother has defaulted in payment of amounts to the respondent, no liability can be fastened to the petitioner and neither the statute nor the rules framed thereunder empower the authorities to disconnect the telephone for the default committed by the petitioners mother. Even, if any statute makes such an imposition, the same would be arbitrary and unreasonable and be a clear infraction of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) THE impugned notice is, therefore, quashed and the respondent is interdicted from disconnecting the telephone bearing No. 223627 of the petitioner for this reason. However, it is made clear that at a future point of time, if the petitioner makes any default with regard to any payments to be made pertaining to telephone number 223627, the authorities concerned shall be entitled to take such action as is available under law.

( 4 ) THE writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

( 5 ) PETITION allowed.