Alteration of local area –No individual notice issued –
Public notice is sufficient . [Kuruvila vs Union of
India. ILR 1976 (2) Ker 118. Gopalan Nambiar (J)]
For non-payment of dues a notice of demand was issued to the
user. Not the Subscriber. A notice under Rule 429 and 429-A is to be
issued to the subscriber and it is mandatory.
[V.P.Mehta v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. AIR 1990 Del. 169]
Authority to pass an order in writing recording the reasons before
disconnection – [Dr.Vijayan vs General Manager,
Telecom 1988(2) KLT 572 = 1988(2) KLJ
290. Varghese Kalliath (J)]
Notice under the existing rules means real and effective
notice. The notice may be served in any
manner the department thinks fit. But the service on the subscriber must be
ensured. This is general safeguard in
addition to the one by way of reminder by registered notice which is available
on the subscriber agreeing to pay rs.6/- per notice. A telephonic notice is fact is an empty formality and cannot at
any stretch of imagination be termed a notice in the real sense. A notice by registered post best serves the
purposes. [Santokh Singh v. Divisional
Engineer. AIR 1990 Gau. 47]
Notice of disconnection is not an empty formality. It must
indicate why and what reason the telephone is to be disconnected. [Union
of India vs. Naryanbhai Keshavlal Patel . AIR 1985 Guj 31]
Allegation of making free calls by the petitioner in
collusion with the department officials.
Subscriber making reply to the show cause notice issued by the
Department. No enquiry was conducted and as matter of course and
routine fashion an order was passed for disconnection. Disconnection of telephone without giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is not proper. Authorities directed to initiate arbitration
proceedings under Sec.7B of the Telegraph Act for determining the question of
fact and direction given to reconnect the telephone immediately. [AIR
1993 A.P. 19]
Telephone connection provided to a tenant. A decree of eviction was passed against him
but not evicted. Authorities can give
telephone connection 9o the premises occupied to him. [Pushpa Rani v. Addl. District
Magistrate. AIR 1984 Cal. 294.]
Telephone is to be installed at the address given by the
subscriber irrespective of the fact whether it was used by the subscriber or
his secretary. [C. Jose Ukkur vs. nion of
India. AIR 1990 Mad. 248]
Procedure prescribed for operating the Tatkal Scheme on the
basis of "first come first served basis" has no only resulted into
determination along but also arbitrariness, thus offending Art.14 of the
Constitution of India. [Ashish
Handa v. Dist. Manager AIR 1992 P & H 122.]