ORDER
B.C. Varma, J.
1. The petitioner has a telephone, bearing No. 28434 at her residence. She has yet another telephone, bearing No. 29390 installed at her clinic. According to her, the bills on the first telephone varied between Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,600/- per month. She regularly deposited the telephone charges. On 1-8-1987, she received a bill for Rs. 19,221/-. Feeling naturally that it was completely out of proportion as compared to the bills received by her in the past, she protested against that bill. However, without taking any decision on the obnjection raised, the telephone was disconnected. A provisional bill was, however, tendered to the petitioner on 20-9-1987 for Rs. 2,122/-, which she paid. On payment of additional charges for re-connection, the telephone was re-connected. In April 1988, the petitioner was informed that the earlier bill for Rs. 19,221/- was found to be correct on verification. She was asked to deposit that amount and the notice contained a direction that the telephone shall be disconnected, if the amount of the bill was not paid. The petitioner then received a letter No. TRA/28434/14 dated 3-2-1989 (Document No. 2), requiring her to pay all the telephone bills relating to telephone No. 28434, failing which her other telephone No. 29390 shall also be disconnected. She responded to this letter saying that she was prepared to pay the bills dated 5-2-1988 and 11-4-1988. She, however, disputed the bill dated 1-8-1987 as arbitrary and unreasonable. As the amount under the bill dated 1-8-1987 remained unpaid, the petitioner's both the telephones have been disconnected. This 'petition is directed against this action of disconnecting both the telephones.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the bill dated 1-8-1987 for the use of telephone No. 28434 is shockingly high, exorbitant and arbitrary, when compared to the previous bills. It only shows some defect in the instrument or defective reading. In support of this contention, it was mentioned that even for the period when the telephone remained disconnected, the petitioner continued to receive bills for use of that telephone by her. No doubt, it is true that compared to the bills received by the petitioner in the past for use of the telephone No. 28434, the bill dated 1-8-1987 is excessive. All the same, the department verified the petitioner's complaint and results of the verification are that the bill was correct. Nothing, therefore turns upon this contention.
3. The next contention, has been that in accordance with Rule 421 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, as amended in 1986, framed in exercise of power under section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, no notice was given to her before disconnecting the telephone. Section 3 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, defines 'telegraph' to mean telephone also. By force of section 4, within India the Central Government shall have exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs. The first proviso to that section, authorises the Central Government to grant a licence subject to such rules as may be framed under the Act on such conditions and in consideration of such payment as it thinks fit, to any person to establish, maintain or work a telegraph within any part of India. Section 7 empowers the Central Government to make rules consistent with the Act for grant of a licence to establish, maintain or work telegraphs or for the conduct of all or any telegraphs established, maintained or worked by the Government or by persons licensed under the Act. Thus the exclusive privilege of supplying telegraph connections vests in the Central Government. This, however, is regulated by the rules framed under section 7 and if the rules framed do not provide for certain matters, executive instructions may be issued by the Central Government in respect of such matters, the only prohibition being that such instructions should not conflict with or defeat any provision of the Act or the rules. Such has also been the view of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Mohomed Ali v. Union of India, AIR 1974 Kerala 157, section 7(2)(e) enables the Central Government to frame rules providing for conditions and restrictions subject to which any telegraph line, cable chamber tower appliance or apparatus for telegraphic communications shall be established, maintained, worked, repaired, transferred, shifted, withdrawn or disconnected. In exercise of these powers under section 7, the Central Government has framed rules known as 'Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951'. Chapter V of these rules, including rules 411 to 459, relates to telephones. Rule 412 relates to supply and maintenance of equipment and the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, is prescribed as the authority, who shall instal and maintain in good working order the equipment and apparatus provided by the department. Rule 413 provides that all telephone connections and other services provided by the department shall be subject to the conditions set forth in the rules. Rule 414 permits a person to apply for telephone connection. in writing and in the form as may be prescribed. The application may be refused in terms of rule 416. Rule 434 relates to schedule of fees and charges for various services under the rules. Rule 416-A vests the Telegraph Authority with special powers in certain cases mentioned in the rule, to refuse telephone connection or, if granted, to withdraw the same. We have then rule 421 and since the petitioner's submission is based upon this rule, it shall be useful to quote it in extenso. It is 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.'
At this juncture, we may also notice yet another rule 443, which provides for the consequences of default of payment of rent or other charges in respect of telephone services. That rule is as follows: -
'443. Default of payment. - If, on or before the due date, the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone sendee provided are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with these rules or bills for charges in respect of calls (local and trunk) or phonograms or other dues from the subscriber are not duly paid by him, any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him may be disconnected without notice. The telephones or 'the telex so disconnected may, if the Telegraph Authority thinks fit, be restored, if the defaulting subscriber pays the outstanding dues and the reconnection fee together with the rental for such portion of the intervening period during which the telephone or telex remains disconnected, as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority from time to time. The subscriber shall pay all the above charges within such period as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority from time to time.'
A comparative reading of these two rules makes it manifest that rule 421 permits disconnection of a telephone only when the Divisional Engineer is satisfied that it is necessary to do so. In that event, he has to record reasons for reaching such a conclusion and the disconnection must precede a notice of at least 7 days, except in case of emergency. The rent for the unexpired portion of the period for which the connection or service was given, has to be refunded to the subscriber in that case. Rule 443, however, contemplates an entirely different situation. There, the telephone or telephones or telex service may be disconnected without notice, if the rent or other charges in respect of a telephone service are not paid by the subscriber, as demanded. The service so disconnected can be restored on payment of the outstanding dues and reconnection charges, if thought fit by the Telegraph Authority.
4. In the case in hand, telephone service has been disconnected for non-payment of dues against the bills raised for calls made and apparently, therefore, the power to disconnect was exercised under Rule 443 and not under Rule 421. It was, therefore, not necessary to give any prior notice or to communicate the reasons for disconnecting the telephone. Notice of not less than seven days is necessary only when disconnection is under Rule 421. In that event, giving of a notice is not a mere empty formality, but that notice should contain reasons for disconnection and the subscriber must also be given opportunity to show cause against such disconnection. (See: Union of India v. Narayanbhai, AIR 1985 Gujarat 31 and M/s. Kumar Keshridas v. Divisional Engineer, 1984 MPLJ 594 = AIR 1984 M. P. 158). It was, however, urged on behalf of the petitioner that even where disconnection of the telephone is on account of a disputed bill containing demand for telephone calls made, an opportunity must be given to show cause against the proposed disconnection. We are, however, of the opinion that the learned counsel is not right in making this submission. Rule 443 specifically states that no notice of disconnection would be necessary in case the disconnection is for default of payment of rent or other charges or bills for charges in respect of calls (local and trunk). What is necessary is the raising of a bill. It will, however, be reasonable to expect the authorities to recheck the bills, if disputed, before taking a decision to finally disconnect the service. The subscriber must be given an opportunity to make payment of the amount mentioned in the bill and it is only upon his failure to make payment of the amount under the bill that the service may be disconnected. If, however, for any reason, it is held that the petitioner was entitled to any notice before disconnection, as may be the requirement of the rule of naural justice, we find from the record that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity for making payment according to the bills. The record produced in original before us shows that after the bill was first raised, the petitioner made a grievance that it was highly excessive. The department then examined the meter and day to day meter reading was checked. The meter was found in order. On 29-8-1987, vide Annexure R-l, the petitioner was informed accordingly. Even then, the bill was not paid.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however contended that when the amount under the bill was disputed by the subscriber, the provisions of section 7-B of the Telegraph Act were attracted and the telephone service could not be disconnected without the matter being referred to arbitration. A decision in Misc. Petition No. 1064 of 1983, decided on 13-10-1983, K. B. Sinha v. Union of India, was relied upon for this proposition. That decision is certainly an authority for the proposition that a dispute between a subscriber and the authority, whether the telephone could or could not be disconnected, is a dispute falling under section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and that the requirement of section 7-B is that such a dispute has to be determined by arbitration in the manner laid down therein. In K. B. Sinha's case, the further observation, however, is:
'In Rasiklal's case, it was held that the authority could not disconnect the telephone when such a dispute had arisen, without recourse to the provision for arbitration under section 7-B of the Act.'
Because of this, the Court in K. B. Sinha's case proceeded to hold that 'the threatened act of disconnecting the telephone, when a dispute as to the correctness of the bill for telephone calls was raised, without adjudication of the dispute by arbitration, is not an authorised act'. Rasiklal's case, 1964 M.P.L.J. 831. was a case where the authorities complained that the subscriber subjected the telephone to unauthorised use and, therefore, proposed disconnection and ultimately disconnected the telephone service. It was held that the dispute as to disconnecting the telephone falls under section 7-B of the Act. We, however, do not find anything in Rasiklal's case to say that the authority could not disconnect the telephone, when such a dispute has arisen, without recourse to the provision of arbitration under section 7-B of the Act. On the other hand, in paragraph 4 of that decision, we see that the Court found it not necessary to examine the contention that the petitioners (subscribers of telephones) have acquired a vested right of having telephones installed at their places continued. The Court specifically stated in that paragraph:-
'The point, therefore, that requires consideration is whether the dispute between the petitioners and the telegraph authority is one falling under section 7-B of the Act.'
Thereafter, the Court quoted section 7-B of the Act and finally answered that question in para 6 of the judgment the way we have stated above. We, therefore, do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner and reject the contention that the telephone service could not be discontinued, without reference of the matter to arbitration, when the bill for charges for calls was disputed. This apart, we find from the record that although the petitioner disputed the correctness of the bill, which, on verification, was found to be correct, the petitioner, at no point of time, before disconnection of the telephone, asked for a reference to arbitration in terms of section 7-B of the Act. Instead, we have a letter dated 22-8-1987, by the petitioner addressed to the department, saying that the bill be re-examined and thereafter time be extended for payment. At no point of time, reference' to arbitration was claimed. The contention is, therefore, rejected.
6. Yet another contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has been that even if the petitioner was held guilty of not paying the telephone charges for the telephone bearing No. 28434, her other telephone bearing No. 29390 could not be disconnected. This contention also cannot be accepted. Rule 443, referred to above, permits disconnection of 'any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him', if rent or other charges or bills for charges in respect of calls are not paid. This rule thus authorises the authority to disconnect not only a particular telephone, but the telephones rented, by the subscriber. Thus, it will not be possible to say that there is any lack of authority to disconnect the entire telephone service rented by a subscriber, either through one or more telephones, in case the subscriber fails to pay before the due date, the bills for charges in respect of telephone calls (local and trunk) or other dues. Discretion is, however, with the authority either to disconnect the given telephone for which the charges are due or the entire telephone service. Each case may be examined as to the reasonability of action taken in that behalf, on facts of that case. In the present case, we find that when the bill was raised, and the petitioner made a complaint, day to day meter reading was recorded and the meter was found in order. The bill raised was found to be correct. The petitioner was intimated accordingly. Still she failed to pay bills. We, therefore, see nothing wrong in this case, when the entire telephone service has been disconnected.
7. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the petitioner's telephone service of both the telephones, i.e. Nos. 28434 and 29390, was justly disconnected. The petitioner certainly has a right to get the dispute decided by arbitration. It was not necessary for the department to have referred the dispute to arbitration before directing disconnection, because of non-payment of charges for the calls. We take that through this petition the petitioner has expressed her desire to get the dispute decided by arbitration. As the telephone service has been disconnected, we, as was done in Rasiklal's case (supra), hold that the petitioner is entitled to the relief for a direction to department for reference of the dispute to an arbitrator for determination in accordance with section 7-B of the Act. The respondents are, therefore, directed to refer the dispute between the petitioner and the telegraph authority relating to discontinuance of the telephone, to arbitration for determination in terms of section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. We expect an early reference and an early adjudication by the arbitrator. The petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to still pay the charges for calls, as contained in the bill, and if that is done, the authorities may consider favourably, as envisaged in rule 443 of the rules, to restore the telephone connection, subject to final decision by the arbitrator. We further direct that since, during the pendency of this petition, by an interim writ, this Court directed telephone No. 29390 to be reconnected, that connection service shall continue pending the Arbitration Proceedings Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.