L. Rath, J.
1. The petitioner is the subscriber of telephone No. CK 22122. A notice was received by him vide Annexure-2 dated 21/28-12-1992 that his late father B.P. Modi had a personal telephone bearing No. CK 21526 which was closed down because of non-payment of the dues amounting to Rs. 17,299.00 and he being the legal heir of his father and using the telephone, was liable to pay the outstanding dues against the closed telephone. In the letter a threat was also administered that unless the payment would be made his telephone No. 22122 and his other telephone No. CK 32683 would be disconnected. The petitioner sent reply on 1-1-1993 that his father had expired since May, !985 and that he was unaware whether telephone No.CK 21526 belonged to the company in which his father was Director or it belonged to him in his personal capacity. At any rate, he disputed his liability to clear the dues in respect of telephone No. CK 21526 and brought to the notice of the authorities that his wife was a heart patient and deprivation of his telephone would cause him great inconvenience. Then another letter was issued to him on 12-3-1983 vide Annexure-4 informing that the telephone No. CK 21526 was used by his late father in his personal capacity. It was stated that the petitioner's assertion of the telephone being not used at his residence was not correct. Saying so, it was intimated that it had been decided to disconnect his working telephone No. 22122. The petitioner protested against such threat in his letter dated 20-3-1993. Thereafter two other letters were also issued to his mother vide Annexures-6 and 7 respectively on 16-2-1993 and 12-3-1993 intimating that the complaintt regarding excess metering in respect of telephone No. CK 21526 was being looked into. All thesame, the petitioner's telephone was disconnected before be came to this Court. By order No. 2 dated 29-4-1993 the petitioner's telephone No. CK 22122 was directed to be restored subject to further orders of the Court.
2. In the counter-affidavit filed in pursuance of the rule issued, the stand of the Department is that telephone No. CK 21526 had been installed in the same house where telephone No. CK 22122 was functioning and that the petitioner being the son was responsible to meet the demand in respect of the telephone of his late father. The other stand taken is that the petitioner is a Director of the company M/s. R.L. Modi & Sons Private Limited and therefore had the responsibility as a Director to meet the demand raised against a telephone 6f the company as the Directors are jointly and severally liable for the dues of the Department.
3. It is fairly conceded by Mr. Panda learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties that the only power in the Department for disconnection of telephone is as found under Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules. That rule inter alia states, so far as relevant, that in the event of default on account of one telephone, other telephones of the subscriber of the defaulting telephone may be disconnected. The liability of a son to have his telephone disconnected in the event of default in respect of a telephone belonging tp his father has already been negatived by this Court by judgment in O.J.C. No. 1447 of 1993. Om Prakash Sharma v. T.D.M. delivered on 5-4-1993. In another case, i.e. O.J.C. No. 1886 of 1993 Panchanan Misra v. Union of India decided on 15-4-1993 the liability of an employee of a company as regards default in respect of company's telephone was also negatived. 'Subscriber' has been defined in Rule 2(pp) of the same Rules as to mean a person to whom a telephone service has been provided by installation under the rules or under an agreement. Admittedly, as per the stand revealed by the opposite party Department in the counter-affidavit, the subscriber in respect of tele-phone'No. CK 21526 was a private limitedcompany M/s. R.L. Modi & Sons Ltd. The petitioner has filed an affidavit today furnishing copy of the complete resolution of M/s. R.L. Modi & Sons Private Limited of 3rd March, 1980 as Annexure-8 showing that since that date the petitioner had resigned from the directorship of the company and to have ceased to be a director. The petitioner as such has no relationship with the company after 3rd March, 1980 and therefore could not have been saddled with making good the default in respect of the company's telephone No. CK 21526. Apart from it, the company is a juristic person having a separate legal entity and when it is the subscriber, its liability is not automatically transferred to the directors. In a private limited company, the liabilities of the directors are limited and as such they being not the subscribers of the company's telephone, a director's personal telephone is not to be disconnected by applying Rule 443 on account of any default in respect of the company's telephone.
4. Even further the action of the Department suffers from the vice of denial of natural justice. Undoubtedly before the telephone of the petitioner was disconnected he was entitled to notice informing him the basis on which this action was contemplated. The earlier notice given to him was not on his supposed liability on account of the company's default but on the basis of his liability as arising of him being his father's son. Had such a notice been given, the petitioner would have been in a position to point out the infirmity in law of his being made liable in respect of default on account of the company's telephone. As such viewed from any angle, the action of the authorities in disconnecting the telephone of the petitioner becomes vulnerable in law.
5. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The notice as per Annexure-4 to the writ petition is quashed.
R.K. Patra, J.
6. I agree.