JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
Rule.
With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.
1. The petitioner had been allotted a STD/ISD/PCO booth on out of turn basis under Franchise Scheme at the National Sports Club of India (NSCI), Mathura Road, New Delhi. The grievance of the petitioner emanates from the fact that the respondent/MTNL vide letter dated 24.11.1998, notified the petitioner that there were outstandings of over Rs. 3 lacs in respect of Telephone No. 3782849 provided as STD/ISD/PCO at NSCI. It had been closed on 28.3.1998. On account of this outstanding, respondent/MTNL was not willing to allot the telephone booth to the petitioner at NSCI on out of turn basis, as proposed.
2. The petitioner claims that he is not responsible for the outstandings of the previous allottee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit also, wherein it is stated that petitioner has neither any personal nor commercial relations with the previous allottee and in fact the previous allottee is not even known to him.
3. The stand taken by the respondent/MTNL in the counter affidavit is as under:-
“As per instructions contained in the letter dated 23.3.1993, new PCO cannot be provided till the outstanding dues against the disconnected telephone ISD/STD/PCO in the name of the applicant or his family members are working in the same location are not liquidated.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent was thereupon asked to file in Court the circular/instructions dated 23.3.1993. Learned counsel has produced the same in Court. The said communication deals with the fraud committed by one Sh. Yogesh and his relatives/friends on telephone lines, the said communication refers to the case of a subscriber, who upon disconnection of a connection on account of outstandings, fraudulently obtained several fresh connections in his name and in the name of his friends and relatives. In these cases, action was recommended, inter alia, for closure of unauthorised telephone lines sanctioned.
5. I do not see how this circular can help the respondent or would be applicable to the present case, where a subsequent allottee without any relationship with a previous allottee is sought to be denied allotment on account of outstandings of the former.
Learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that since there were outstandings in respect of the STD Booth at NSCI Club, petitioner should have been imp leaded the NSCI Club as a party. Further MTNL were not informed of the STD Booth being abandoned by previous allottee. There is nothing on record to suggest that certain duties or obligations were imposed on the landlord/NSCI which they failed to fulfill. In my view, it is for the respondent/MTNL to take necessary precautions to protect its interest in the first instance while allotting ISD/STD/PCO booth. It is for the respondent to fix security, as deemed sufficient by the MTNL having regard to the location and usage of the ISD/STD/PCO booth while allotting it. Moreover, it appears to have been respondent’s own complacency which could have permitted accumulation of dues of Rs. 3 lakhs. Learned counsel for the respondent accepts that as per the present practice, the respondents on receiving a “No-Objection” from the landlord, produced by an allottee for installation of ISD/STD/PCO, proceed with the sanction. It would be for the respondent to take steps, as necessary, including security or devise other terms and conditions as necessary for protection of the call charges payable to them. However, once there is nothing on record to suggest any nexus between the petitioner and the previous allottee, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner or the allotment denied to him for outstandings of the previous allottee.
6. The writ petition is allowed. Respondent/MTNL to proceed with the allotment of the ISD/STD/PCO booth to the petitioner. Let the telephone connection be energised, subject to the petitioner completing the necessary commercial formalities within a month.
The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.