Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition.

          Respondent, Jagjit Singh, had a telephone connection No.232765.  He had not paid the dues for which the telephone was disconnected on 10.7.1997.  Jagjit Singh obtained a new telephone connection No.2484448.  He received Notice dated 30.1.2003 claiming a sum of Rs.14,807/- in respect of the telephone No.232765 which had been disconnected on 10.7.1997.  Respondent challenged the validity of this Notice by filing complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum took cognizance of the complaint and issued Notice to the petitioner.  On being served, the petitioner filed its written statement and took the stand that telephone No.2484448 was in the same premises (as the old telephone No.232765) and in the name of the same person which had been disconnected due to non-payment of dues of Rs.14,807/- and, therefore, the complainant was liable to pay the amount otherwise face disconnection of the new telephone No.2484448.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and held that, since the amount had not been recovered within the prescribed period of limitation of 3 years, petitioner could not recover the same by any coercive methods by adding it in the current bill.  District Forum relied upon two judgements of – (i) Madras High Court in S.A. Ahmed vs. Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board – AIR 2001 Madras 117 and (ii) State Commission, Punjab in PSEB vs. Kuldip Singh – 2004(1) CPC 657, wherein it has been held that the electricity board can recover the dues within the period of 3 years and if the dues sought to be recovered were prior to 3 years, then the same could not be recovered by coercive method by adding the same to the current bills. 

Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner could not recover the amount after the lapse of specified time of 3 years.  That the petitioner had failed to show any rules of the Telephone Department authorizing it to recover the dues after the lapse of more than 3 years. 

Counsel for the appellant relies upon Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, to contend that the petitioner could recover the amount due towards defaulting subscribers by disconnecting the subsequent  telephone connection.  Rule 443 reads as under :

“443.  Default of payment – If, on or before the due date,  the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone service provided are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with these rules, or bills for charges in respect of calls (local or trunk) or phonograms or other dues from the subscriber are not duly paid by him, any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him may be disconnected without notice.  The telephone or telephones or the telex so disconnected may, if the Telegraph Authority thinks fit, be restored, if the defaulting subscriber pays the outstanding dues and the reconnection fee together with the rental for such portion of the intervening period (during which the telephone or telex remains disconnected) as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority from time to time.  The subscriber shall pay all the above charges within such period as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority from time to time.”

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner could disconnect the subsequent telephone, as the respondent had not paid the dues against the earlier telephone, which stood in his name.  This rule does not answer the question of limitation, which has been found against the petitioner.  Dues were outstanding since 10.7.1997 and the demand was raised for the first time on 23.1.2003.  Counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier it was Government of India was running the facility and BSNL took it over in October 2000 after its incorporation.  That since the petitioner had taken the assets and liabilities from the Govt. of India under the newly incorporated company, limitation would start from the day it took over the assets and liabilities.  Govt. of India could, in any case, recover the dues within 30 years as per Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 

We do not find any substance in this submission.  BSNL is not the Central Government.  It is a body corporate and the Law of Limitation would apply to it.  It cannot recover any amount due towards any defaulter, which is more than 3 years.  Lower fora have rightly quashed the Notice issued by the petitioner holding that the petitioner could not disconnect the new telephone connection with regard to the outstanding amount relatable to earlier telephone No.232765 after 6 years of the date from which the amount became payable.  Dismissed.