JUDGMENT
Y. Krishan, J.
(1) This Revision Petition is directed against the order, of 8th February, 1992 made by the State Commission of Tamil Nadu in Appeal Petition No. 155/91.
(2) The facts of the case briefly are:
(3) On 6th of October. 1988 the respondent complainant registered for a new telephone connection to be installed at his address P-35, Ahamed Colony, Ramalinga Nagar.Tiruchirapalli. When the registration for telephone connection matured some time in 1991, the respondent intimated change of his address and desired that his new telephone be installed at 12, Shopping Complex. Salai Road. Tiruchirapalli. The appellant made investigation into the bonafides of the applicant at this point of time and found that the applicant was not residing at the new address given by him at which the telephone was to be installed. In fact he was not residing in Tirichirapalli and his permanent address is at Neiveli. On these considerations, the appellant refused to provide the telephone connection at the new address.
(4) The respondent complainant tiled a complaint petition before the District Forum. The District Forum came to the finding that the complainant petitioner was not residing at the Shopping Complex, Salai Road. Tiruchy and that he was not a genuine applicant for a telephone connection. Therefore, it dismissed the complaint.
(5) In the appeal filed by the petitioner complainant the State Commission took the view that it is not the law that a person who applies for a phone to be installed at a particular premises must be the owner or a tenant under a valid agreement of tenancy and that the complainant in this case was either residing or having some business in that premises and, therefore, he is entitled to have a phone. The State Commission cited the case of his predecessor tenant in the Shopping Complex who also had a telephone connection. It therefore, directed the respondent to give a telephone connection to the complainant.
(6) Under the rules of the P&T Manual, which are in the nature of a Subordinate Legislation, the respondent is entitled to undertake verification of the bonafides of an applicant for telephone at the time of opening of new telephone connections to ensure that a telephone is provided only to genuine persons for bonafide use. In this case, keeping in view the fact that originally the respondent complainant had asked for a telephone connection at his address in Ahamed Colony, Ramalinga Nagar, Tiruchy, which he subsequently changed to a premises in the Shopping Complex in another locality and that his permanent residence is at Neiveli; the appellant had good and sufficient grounds to maintain that the respondent complainant was not a bonafide applicant for a telephone connection.
(7) In any case under the Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Forums have no authority to give a direction for giving the telephone connection as has been done by the State Commission. The relief granted by the State Commission is beyond its jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act. In consequence, the Order of the State Commission is set aside. There is no order as to costs.