- (1.)The petitioner was a subscriber of telephone No. 2943 of the Quilon Division. By Ext. P1 application dated 10-10-1967 the petitioner applied to have the telephone shifted to Thundathil House. Vadakkevila, Quilon, on the ground that he has shifted his office to his residence in the said house. This was allowed and the petitioner has said that since 1968 the telephone had been installed in the said house. While so, the petitioner received Ext. P2 notice dated 7-3-1972 to show cause why the telephone No. 2943 should not be disconnected under the Indian Telegraph Rules after enquiry. The notice set out that the telephone was provided for the petitioner's use and that it was understood that the premises where the telephone was installed namely, Thundathil House, was occupied by Sri. G. D Nair who is using the telephone without authority. It was therefore said that the present possession and use of the telephone by the said G. D. Nair was irregular and therefore the telephone was liable to be disconnected. By Ex. P3, the petitioner replied that he had applied for having the telephone shifted to the house of his brother G. D. Nair with whom be was residing and that the telephone was installed and continued to be fitted in the said place. It was also pointed out that the petitioner's brother Sri. G. D. Nair is having his own telephone bearing No. 4165. After this explanation, the petitioner has alleged that his telephone was disconnected.
(2.)In the counter affidavit it has been stated that Ext. P2 show cause notice was issued under R.421 of the Telegraph Rules, and that, after receipt of Ext. P3 reply, further enquiries were made by the Department and it was found that the petitioner was neither residing nor having any business in the house, where the telephone was installed, and hence the telephone is disconnected. In the light of the petitioner's explanation given in Ext. P3, there is nothing to show that the further enquiries made by the authorities were with notice to the petitioner. I am unable to see anything in the Telegraph Rules which enables the authorities to disconnect the telephone sanctioned for the use of one person on the ground that he was neither residing, nor having a place of business in the premises where the telephone was installed. Ext. P1 application was to shift the telephone to Thundathil House, where the continuance of the telephone was found objectionable by Ext. P2. Whether the authorities made any enquiries as to Sri. G. D. Nair being the brother of the petitioner as stated, and as to whether the telephone was shifted to the house where the petitioner was residing with his brother, are matters which have not been made clear in the counter affidavit. R.421 of the Telegraph Rules referred to in the counter affidavit reads as follows:
"421. Disconnection of telephones: Where the Divisional Engineer is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is necessary to do so, he may, after giving the subscriber a notice in writing for a period which shall not except in emergent cases, be less than 7 days, disconnect the telephone and in such case; the subscriber shall be entitled to refund of rent for the unexpired portion of the period for which the connection or service was given."

Quite apart from the difficulty of reading the rule as sanctioning a disconnection of the telephone on the ground that it had been installed in premises neither used for purpose of residence nor for business, by the person in whose name the telephone was sanctioned, there is the added difficulty that it has not been shown that reasons bad been recorded in writing for the satisfaction of the concerned Officer that it was necessary to disconnect the telephone. It is not possible therefore to sustain the impugned action under R.421 of the Rules referred to in the counter affidavit.

(3.)As I see no provision in the telegraph Act or the Rules, for disconnecting a telephone on the ground that the premises were not occupied for purpose of residence or used for purpose of business, by the person in whose name the telephone was sanctioned and as no enquiry in regard to the matters stated in Ext. P3 explanation is shown to have been made, with notice to the petitioner, and as R.421 of the Telegraph Rules seems to be inapplicable, I allow this writ petition and quash Ext. P2 and direct the restoration to the petitioner of telephone No. 2943. There will be no order as to costs.