O.P.GUPTA vs M.T.N.L.

AN application has been filed by the complainant for rectification of alleged typographical mistake in the order of this Commission. It is alleged that inadvertently the dispute relating to unauthorized use of telephone No. 235023 has been referred to in the order as dispute under Rule 421 instead of under Rule 420 of the Indian Telegraph Rules.

THE application has been contested on behalf of the respondent. THE facts are that the complainant filed a complaint before us for granting damages to him for illegal disconnecting his telephone No. 235023 and for quashing the notice dated 5.3.91 issued under Rule 420. At the time of arguments a compromise was arrived at between the parties according to which it was agreed that the telephone connection would be restored to the complainant subject to the payment of rental charges and restoration fee. It was further agreed that the dispute under Rule 421 between the parties be referred to the Arbitrator by the respondent. We have been informed that in pursuance of the order, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator, who has passed an award. The award was challenged by the complainant in the High Court through a writ petition which was dismissed in limine. After exhausting the remedy of writ petition he filed the present petition. We have heard arguments made on behalf of the parties. Both the rules reads as follows : - Rule 420 : Default of Subscriber due to Insolvency etc. When a subscriber is adjudged an insolvent or makes or enters into any composition or arrangement with his creditors or suffers execution to be levied upon his premises, or commits any breach of or fails to observe and comply with any of these rules, the Telegraph Authority may close the connection by giving to the subscriber notice in writing for a period of seven days. Rule 421 : Disconnection of Telephones Where the Divisional Engineer is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is necessary to do so, he may, after giving the subscriber a notice in writing for a period which shall not except in emergent cases be less than 7 days, disconnect the telephone, and in such case, the subscriber shall be entitled to refund of rent for the unexpired portion of the period for which the connection or service was given.

From a perusal of the rules it is clear that a notice for disconnection of the telephone connection under Rule 420 can be given for the reasons mentioned therein, where as notice under Rule 421 can be given for any reason. Rule 421 confers inherent powers to issue notices for disconnection of telephone numbers on the competent authority. It is true that in the present case the notice was issued to the complainant under Rule 420 and in the order it was mentioned that it was done under Rule 421. However, it was the impugned notice dated 5.3.91 which was considered by the Arbitrator and the award was given on that basis. The objection raised by the complainant is too technical to be noticed. Moreover, the order was dictated in presence of the parties in the Court room. No one objected at that time that the rule was wrongly mentioned in the order. Even the mistake was not pointed out, when the complainant received the copy of the order or during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. It is further note worthy that the statement of the parties was recorded in the Court room and even in that statement the rule referred to is Rule 421 and the mistake was not pointed out by the complainant.

AFTER taking into consideration all the afore- said circumstances we do not find any merit in the application and dismiss the same. No order as to costs. Application dismissed.