JUDGMENT
S.K. Gupta, J.
1. By means of this petition, the petitioners seek the quashing of the decision taken by respondents to disconnect the telephone connections No. 458847, 458848, 549859 and 576643 and notice issued vide No. JTR/Dcf/433725/4 dated 1-5-2002 in the event of non-depositing of payment of the telephone bills in respect of telephone connection No. 433725 by Shri Narinder Singh, resident of 302 Housing Colony, Ambadakar Chowk, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, and further commanding the respondents not to disconnect the telephone connections of the petitioners on account of non-payment of the telephone dues by third person, viz., Narinder Singh. Petitioners claim to be the subscribers of telephone connection Nos. 458847, 458848, 549859 and 576643 respectively and are regularly paying the telephone bills. Vide Notice No. JTR/Def/433725/4 dated 1-5- 2002, the respondents have threatened to disconnect the telephone connections of the petitioners in the event of non-payment of all telephone bills by subscriber of telephone connection No. 433725. According to the petitioners, subscriber of telephone connection No. 433725 is a different person and his telephone is installed at 11-A/D, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The impugned notice is, therefore, arbitrary and illegal and is violative of their fundamental, statutory and legal rights, and in pursuance thereof decision taken at their back is without complying with the principles of natural justice.
2. The stand taken by the respondents in their reply is that Smt. Gurvinder Kour and S. Harveer Singh, petitioners-1 and 2, are the wife and the son of Narinder Singh, subscriber of telephone connection No. 433725. They squarely fall within the definition of ‘relative’ – husband/wife and blood relations. It is further contended that the telephone connection Nos. 458847 and 458848 have been installed in the same premises where the subscriber of telephone connection No. 433725, Narinder Singh, Defaulter, resides. On account of commonality of usage of telephones by petitioners-1 and 2 and Shri Narinder Singh and the premises being the same house/office, the respondents are fully empowered Under Section 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 to disconnect the telephones of petitioners-1 and 2 for the default committed by Narinder Singh, subscriber of telephone connection No. 433725. It is further stated that Narinder Singh, Defaulter, is living in the same premises, i.e., House No. 302 Housing Colony, Ambadakar Chowk, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, where petitioners-1 and 2 are residing. There being a nexus between the defaulting subscriber and the subscribers whose telephone connections are sought to be disconnected, the Department can resort to invocation of rule 443 to protect its interest.
3. It is not in dispute that petitioners-1 and 2 are the wife and the son of Narinder Singh, Defaulter. Narinder Singh, subscriber of telephone connection No. 433725, is residing with his family, i.e., wife and son, petitioners-1 and 2, at H. No. 203 Housing Colony, Ambadakar Chowk, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, where telephone connection Nos. 458847 and 458848 are installed. Other two telephone Nos. 549859 and 576643 are installed in the shop premises. Narinder Singh is using the same at both the places, though in the name of his wife and his son at his residence at 203 Housing Colony, Ambadakar Chowk, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and office of M/s ECH EMM PHOTO COLOURS PRIVATE LIMITED, Below Gumat, Jammu. Thus, there is commonality of usage of telephones by the petitioners and the defaulter, subscriber of telephone connection No. 433725, Narinder Singh. There is nothing to indicate that the mother and son are not living together with Narinder Singh in same premises, viz., H. No. 302 Housing Colony, Ambadakar Chowk, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. This clearly indicates the commonality of usage of telephone by the defaulting subscriber with petitioners-1 and 2.
4. On going through the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that once the department has established that there is commonality of user and there is nexus between the defaulting subscriber as well as the subscribers whose telephones are sought to be disconnected, the Department can invoke the provisions of section 443 for disconnection of the telephones in order to save the interest of the Department. Reliance is placed in case tittled Rajiv Gosain v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., AIR 2000 Delhi 431. Telephone No. 433725 was provided to Narinder Singh at 11-A/D, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, where he was a tenant. Telephone connection Nos. 549859 and 576643 are installed in the premises of M/s ECH EMM PHOTO COLOURS PRIVATE LIMITED, Below Gumat, Jammu. in which Narinder Singh is one of the Director. So there is commonality of usage of the telephone connections by petitioners-1 and 2 and Shri Narinder Singh. The contention raised by Mr. K. S. Johal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that disconnection of the telephone connections of the petitioners-1 and 2 on account of anybody’s error, viz., non-depositing of arrears of telephone bills by husband of petitioner-1 and father of petitioner-2, though user of an independent telephone subscriber, is unwarranted and contrary to the provisions of section 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, is neither tenable nor acceptable. In fact, all these are the telephones for their benefit. There was no violation of principles of natural justice. It is clear that the notice was addressed to Narinder Singh intimating him to make the payment of the telephone dues in respect of telephone No. 433725 within 14 days to avoid disconnection of T.C. Nos. 458847, 458848, 549859 and 576643. Therefore, there is no substance in the argument put forth by Mr. K.S. Johal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The time was given to comply with the requirement of the notice and it was open to the petitioner to reply it and explain. It cannot, therefore, in such event, be said that there is any violation of principles of natural justice.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed at preliminary stage of admission.