Union of India vs VIJAY KUMAR SINGHAL

UNDER the misconceived interpretation of the Rule 443 of the Telegraph Rules, 1951, the personal telephone of the Director of the Company was disconnected because the payment of the dues was against five telephone connections of the said Company. District Forum, Ludhiana allowed the complaint by its order-dated 17.4.1998. The order was to restore the telephone of the complainant within one month and to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. Hence the appeal is by the Telecom Department.

IT is pertinent to note that there is delay of 64 days in filing the appeal. The reason given is the red tapism involved in the Government machinery and administrative exigencies. The copy of order passed by the District Forum, Ludhiana was received on 12.6.1998 and thereafter on 18.6.1998 it was sent for comments and after going through various channels, the file was received back on 24.8.1998 to seek legal opinion. On 29.8.1998, the legal opinion was sought. After getting approval from the Competent Authority the file was sent to the Counsel for preparation and filing the same in the Commission. IT is stated that the delay caused is totally unintentional. There is delay of more than 2 months in filing the appeal. The appellant has given no sufficient reasons for that which could be accepted. One has to be cautious in matters which need expedious decisions of the Competent Authority. Moving of important matters on snail speed will not get response in the favour. It is un- understandable as to how the Telecom Department could remain so unconcerned about the matter that they did not file an appeal within prescribed limit of time, if in their view the order passed was incorrect and erroneous one. This is clear manifestation of the irresponsibility of the officers of the Telecom Department. The administrative delay is no cogent reason for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Hence the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

The appeal also deserves to be dismissed on merits. Vijay Kumar Singhal, the complainant, is subscriber of telephone No. 410975, his telephone was disconnected for some arrears against Singla Cycle Ltd. and M/s. Ganesh Iron Store. The opposite party, Telephone Department, justified its action of disconnection of the telephone on the ground that complainant was partner and Director of such firm. District Forum has considered all the aspects in detail and has come to its decision which is just and proper. A Company is juristic person having separate legal entity and its liability cannot be transferred to its Directors. If the Company goes into arrears of bills, the telephone of the Director which was in his personal name could not be disconnected under Rule 443. Therefore, it is evidently clear that the disconnection of the telephone of the complainant was against law. The Telephone Department had erred in performing its duty and had arbitrarily disconnected the telephone depriving the complainant of the use of his personal telephone. Telephone Department has been rightly held responsible for its irresponsible action.

WE find no substance in the plea raised by the appellant as the order passed by the District Forum is wholly in accordance with law. Hence the application for condonation of delay as well as appeal are dismissed. Appeal dismissed.