Arvind Kumar and ors. Vs. M.T.N.L. and ors.

the case discussed the effect of delay in raising the bill on the telephone connection of the petitioner - in the instant case, the telephone bill of certain amount including the amount of late payment was pending against the petitioner - in this lieu, the petitioner was directed to pay the amount demanded by the respondent in six monthly installment - the respondent also stated that after payment of the first installment the telephone connection of the petitioner would be restored on the condition that he would continue to make the subsequent payments for the use of telephone - it was further directed that in case, the petitioner defaulted in making the payment of any two consecutive installments before paying the entire amount, the respondents would be entitled to disconnect the telephone as per rules 443, 445 and 424 of the telegraph rules, 1951 - - 2. the grievance of the petitioner is that despite his repeated entreaties the respondents failed to raise the bill for his telephone number 742-0195. petitioner was suddenly confronted, in june 2000, with a bill for the sum of rs. 2,000/-.it is not disputed before me that the delay in billing had emanated out of the respondents' own failure to feed the necessary data in the computer......with a bill for the sum of rs. 69.064.00, which included late payment charge of rs. 2,000/-. it is not disputed before me that the delay in billing had emanated out of the respondents' own failure to feed the necessary data in the computer. in fact, the nothings on the file reveal that one of the causes for the delay was that one of the employees, who was dealing with the case, had been transferred. the situation for the petitioner further aggravated when, as per the petitioner, he met senior officials of the respondent including the dgm (finance), for grant of installments. as per the petitioner, his requests were not heeded to. in these circumstances, mr. b.d. sharma, dgm (finance), mtnl, was directed to be personally present. 3. mr. b.d. sharma is present in court today. he has produced before the court petitioner's request for installments, wherein he had directed grant of five installments. as per the respondents, this decision was conveyed to the petitioner on telephone. this does not inspire confidence, in as much as, the petitioner is unlikely to have approached the court with this writ petition, had this decision about grant of installments been conveyed to him. be that as it may, this controversy need not detain us any further. 4. the desirability of attending to the grievances of the subscribers in the present day context of highly competitive business has been emphasised upon the dgm (finance), mtnl. 5. let petitioner pay the amount demanded by the respondents less the late payment charges and the charges towards telephone rental for the period during which the telephone remained disconnected, in six monthly installments, commencing from 21st october, 2000. on payment of the first installment by 21st october, 2000, petitioner's telephone number 742-0195 shall be restored. petitioner shall also continue to pay the current charges for use of the telephone. in case petitioner defaults in payment of any two consecutive installments of fails to pay the.....