Petitioner was opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent/complainant being the  member of Telephone Advisory Committee was provided with telephone No.251511 by the petitioner.  On expiry of the term of said Committee, telephone facility provided to the respondent was withdrawn and as such, the above telephone connection was disconnected in September, 2001.  He was issued a notice on 24.5.2002 requiring him to deposit sum of

-2-

Rs.58,805/- on account of charges of said telephone.  Respondent, thereafter, approached the petitioner informing them that he was not liable to pay any telephone bill as he was never asked to make payment of the same during the period he was member of the Committee; that no intimation about alleged recovery of the telephone charges was ever received by him.  It was further alleged that without hearing the respondent, petitioner disconnected the telephone of the respondent/complainant; that the complainant had another telephone connection No.258585 which was also disconnected.  Complaint was filed before the District Forum by the respondent with a prayer that the bill issued to him in the sum of Rs.58,805/- be quashed and his telephone No.258585 be restored.  District Forum dismissed the complaint.

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission along with the application seeking restoration of telephone connection No.258585 which had been disconnected on account of arrears of bill of telephone No.251511.  The State Commission by an interim order

-3-

directed the petitioner to restore the telephone No.258585.  The same reads as under:

         “Notice of appeal for 29.8.2005.  Vide M.A. No.394/2005, the appellant has requested for restoration of private Telephone connection No.258585 which has been disconnected for arrear of telephone No.251511.  For the reasons stated in the application, telephone No.258585 which has been disconnected without Notice, may be restored within a fortnight, pending decision on appeal.”

          The case of the petitioner was that the second telephone was disconnected in terms of Rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules which authorizes the petitioner to disconnect the telephone in case there are outstanding bills against another telephone in the same premises.

          District Forum had dismissed the complaint relying upon Rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules.  The State Commission in appeal filed by the respondent directed it to restore the telephones connection i.e. 258585 which was against the statutory rules. 

This Commission had stayed the impugned order, however, taking a lenient view and directed that in case the respondent

-4-

deposits 25% of the unpaid amount, then telephone may be reconnected subject to final outcome of the revision petition.  Respondent has not deposited the amount as directed by this Commission.  It seems that the respondent is not interested in restoration of the connection any longer.  In view of this, the impugned order passed by the State Commission directing the petitioner to restore the telephone connection No.258585 is set aside and the revision petition is allowed.