Demand of security by wife – Contention that amounts are due
to the Department by defaulting
husband is not valid – There is no law
which prohibits a wife and husband from owning separate and independent
telephone connections even when they share the same roof. Their right and
liabilities in respect of individual telephone connections remain unaffected by
their marital tie . [Sreedevi Menon vs
Sub-Divisional Engineer. OP.No. 7770 of 2000, dated 1st June,2000.
M.R.Hariharan Nair(J)]
Demand of Additional security
under Rule 445 unilaterally calling upon the subscribers to deposit additional
security deposit and other charges is violative of the rules of natural justice. [K. Channappa vs. The Union of India. AIR 1991 Kant. 18]
Imposing security deposit on
existing telex subscribers by amending Rule 505-A is valid and does not suffer
from infirmity of retro activity.
Imposition is not by way of penalty but only as a precautionary
measure. [M/s. S.G. Steels Pvt. Ltd. v.
Union of India. AIR 1984 Del. 272.]
Circular from the Department of
Telecommunications providing for review and revision of security deposit based
on averaged monthly revenue for six months or one year from STD Booth operators
is reasonable and not arbitrary or unfair.
[Krishnagiri STD Booth Owners Association v. Telecom District Engineer.
W.A.No.69/1993. Madras High Court]
The security amount is nothing
but a provision to enable adjustment towards the bill if the bill is not
paid. So the Department cannot be asked
to pay interest for the same. [
Union of India v. Hardev Singh. 1994(2)
CPR. 35]
Government of India has taken a
decision on 23-10-1970 to charge additional rental for stand-by equipment
provided to subscribers of telephones.
It was held by the Kerala High Court that the demand by the Department
for additional payment retrospectively from 197 is without jurisdiction. [Government of India v. I.T.H. & Co.
AIR 1980 Ker. 211]
Fixation of call unit for
specified Electronic Exchanges by amending the Rule 434 is valid. Different rate can be prescribed for
electronic exchanges. [Bombay Telephone Users Assn.
V. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. AIR
1993 Bom 194.]
Application for telephone was
made. It is the duty of the Telecom
Department to intimate that his claim has been accepted and to deposit the
amount. Thus where the intimation was
sent but it was not served on the petitioner due to this omission on part of
the Department he could not deposit the amount in 1981 on waiting list even
though his application was accepted.
Since the petitioner was willing to deposit amount in 1981 but he could
do so only after intimation which though sent was not served it shall be deemed
that deposit was made within time, and he was entitled to telephone connection
without any further delay. [Ram
Nivas Singh v. District Manager. AIR
1987 ALL 314]