ORDER
R. A. Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner is a medical practitioner who is running a private clinic known as National Hospital, Nagina, Bijnor. He was provided with two telephones No. 49 and 89 for his clinic as well as for his residence in 1971 and 1977, respectively. The respondents have disconnected the telephones of the petitioner on 31-3-1985. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit and the petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner’s case is that on 3-5-1984 when he booked a call, the Telephone v Operator misbehaved with him against whom he made a complaint, in response to which the Sub/Divisional Officer (Telephone) vide his letter dated 31-5-1984 informed the petitioner that departmental action will be taken against the Operator concerned. It is alleged by the petitioner that in view of the complaint made by him, both the telephones were made dead in 1984, on account of which he made another complaint on 3-9-1984. However, on account of the extraneous consideration and without giving him any opportunity, the telephone connections were disconnected on 31-3-1985. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated 5-8-1985 informing him about the disconnection of his telephones on 31-3-1985 due to non-paymant of the dues. The amount was, however, not mentioned. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition, it has specifically been stated by the petitioner that there was nothing due against him but even then without giving any opportunity, his telephones were disconnected, although he was ready and is still ready to pay the amount which may be found due against him.
4. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have admitted the disconnection of the petitioner’s both the telephones on 31-3-1985. Their explanation is that as the petitioner has failed to pay the amount due, his telephones were disconncted. In paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the information was given on telephone to the petitioner about non-payment of the dues, even then no payment was made by him.
5. In the rejoinder-affidavit the petitioner has denied the allegations made in the counter-affidavit. That apart, neither the date on which information was given to the petitioner nor the amount regarding which the payment was required to be made by him, was mentioned in the counter-affidavit. It may further be stated that nothing in writing was given to the petitioner before disconnecting his telephones on 31-3-1985.
6. Telephone is no more an item of luxury. It is a necessity in the present day life of the urban areas specially for professionals like doctors, advocates and businessmen Although the Government has a monopoly in the matter but it cannot act arbitrarily. It must inform the subscriber, in writing, of the
dues before disconnecting his telephone and if, after due notice, the dues are not paid by him, it is open to the Government to disconnect it. Such a course is necessary because a person cannot be deprived of an essential service like telephone, unless a prior notice, containing the reasons for disconnection, is given to him. In the instant case, it is not disputed that no such notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner before disconnecting his telephones. In fact the telephones were disconnected on 31-3-1985 and the intimation in writing, about it was given to the petitioner vide letter dated 5-8-1985 i.e. after about five months from the date of disconnection. This is the only information received by the petitioner. In fact, in this connection, in para 7 of the counter-affidavit it has been admitted that by letter dated 5-8-1985 the petitioner has been informed about disconnection of his telephones on account of non-payment of the bills. The above letter, however, does not mention the amount due. What is the amount due from the petitioner, has not been disclosed even in the counter-affidavit. Petitioner, in his writ petition, has stated that there is nothing due from him and he is ready to pay the amount which may be found due against him. When the petitioner has stated in his writ petition that there is nothing due against him, it was the duty of the respondents to specify the amount in their counter-affidavit, but that has not been done. From perusal of para 8 of the writ petition it is clear that the petitioner has paid five bills, which he received from the respondents, after disconnection of his telephones. In para 8 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the bills which the petitioner paid after disconnection of his telephones, were delivered to him wrongly by the postal department, as they were sent to the two new subscribers to whom the telephone numbers of the petitioner were allotted after expiry of six months from the date of disconnection. It appears that the petitioner has been making payment of the telephone bills regularly.
7. From perusal of the record it is thus apparent that respondents have acted arbitrarily in disconnecting the telephones of the petitioner, writ petition, as such, is liable to be allowed.
8. The writ petition is allowed with costs. In view of the facts that the petitioner is a practicing doctor for whom the telepone was a necessity, not only for his personal use but also for the patient whom he is expected to serve and further on account of the fact that the respondents have acted arbitrarily, it is a fit case to award special cost which, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we assess at Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) which shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before them. The respondents are further directed to restore both the telephone connections of the petitioner within a month of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. In case there is difficulty in restoring the same number, the respondents shall allot fresh numbers within the time specified above.
9. Petition allowed.