Judgment : This Rule was issued on a Writ petition. On an application made on March 11, 1959 the petitioner had obtained a telephone connection allotted to him by the Respondents. It is not in dispute that on August 5, 1969 he was given the telephone connection at his the then place of business at No. 15, Ganesh Chandra Avenue. The petitioner shifted his place of business from the aforesaid premises No. 15, Ganesh Chandra Avenue to Premises No. 6-C, Gopal Banerjee Lane. The latter premises comes within the telephone Zone No. 46. On May 8, 1970, the petitioner applied for the shifting of his telephone connection from premises No. 15, Ganesh Chandra Avenue to premises No. 6-C, Gopal Banerjee Lane. Before he could get any reply to the aforesaid application of his he was in a hurry as he was leaving the premises and on May 25, 1970 he informed the authorities that his existing connection may be discontinued forthwith and the instrument concerned be taken over in deposit pending the transfer of the connection to the new premises as applied for by him. On the day following, that is, May 26, 1970 he, however, got a reply from the authorities to his application for shifting, the relevant part whereof is set out hereunder : "Kindly refer to your letter mentioned above regarding shift of telephone. Government have recently laid down a rule that shift from one exchange area to another will normally be allowed only if the applicants would either have been provided a telephone connection in the exchange area to which the shift is required, on the basis of their original application on the cases where the existing telephone is working in the exchange continuously for three years. The existing telephone was provided to you on the basis of an application dated 11.3.59 registered in ordinary category and is working in the present exchange for less than three years. Neither the applicant for telephone in exchange area who applied prior to you have yet been provided telephone connections, nor your telephone is working in the present exchange for 3 years. As such, we very much regret that the shift asked by you cannot be carried out at this stage. Kindly intimate whether the telephone is required to be temporarily disconnected in order to avoid misuse of the same. As such, we very much regret that the shift asked by you cannot be carried out at this stage. Kindly intimate whether the telephone is required to be temporarily disconnected in order to avoid misuse of the same. Kindly note that rental benefit for the disconnection period will not be admissible till shift is qualified. You are also requested to intimate where the bills will be sent in future. In case no reply is received regarding bill instructions, it will continue to be sent at the old address and the department will not be responsible for non-receipt by you. Yours faithfully, Sd/-Illegible. For Contract Officer (II) Calcutta Telephones'. 2. On May 27, 1970 the authorities, however, disconnected the existing connection and took away the instrument concerned. 3. Since then it is a long history of representations being made by the petitioner objecting to realisation of rental without giving him a connection on transfer as prayed for by him and objecting to the various other irregularities like the issue of improper and incorrect bills as against the petitioner. Ultimately on August 7, 1971 the petitioner was informed by the authorities as follows :- "This is to inform you that the above line was installed in 23 Exch. in the month of August, 1969, and this line is qualified for a shift to 46 Exch. after 3 years working at the existing place as per rule. The date of original application also does not come within the ceiling date. As such your request for shift will be taken up in August, 1972". 4. Thus upon the case made out by the respondents themselves with reference to the Rule referred to in the aforesaid communication the petitioner was entitled to a re-connection the shift being allowed in August, 1972. But unfortunately for him when the authorities were realising rent without affording any service, they preferred to do so and they continued to serve the rental bills on the petitioner but without giving him the connection even after August, 1972. 5. But unfortunately for him when the authorities were realising rent without affording any service, they preferred to do so and they continued to serve the rental bills on the petitioner but without giving him the connection even after August, 1972. 5. At that stage, being aggrieved by such illegal withholding of the transfer of the telephone connection and at the same time being forced to make payment of rental bills, the petitioner moved this Court disputing the validity of the rule referred to in the aforesaid correspondence by virtue of which rental was being realised from him for all these years without giving him a re-connection. He prayed for an appropriate Writ in the matter though unfortunately for him there is no prayer for any refund of the realisation alleged to be illegally made according to the petitioner. 6. On the application as above the above Rule was issued on December 20, 1972. The notices of the Rule having been served the respondents felt the urge to move and on March 30, 1973 the petitioner was granted the re-connection at premises No. 6-C, Gopal Banerjee Lane. Such re-connection having ultimately been given that part of the petitioner's grievance now stands redeemed though at a very late stage by the respondents. The only dispute that has to be gone into now on the present application is as to whether the respondents were legally entitled to go on realising the rental for the period between disconnection in exchange 23, that is May 27, 1970 and re-connection at exchange 46 on May 30, 1973. 7. On this dispute again Mr. Ghose appearing on behalf of the respondents has conceeded very fairly before this Court that the rental realised for the period from August 5, 1969 till March 30, 1973 without giving the petitioner a connection though he became entitled to such a connection on transfer on August 5, 1972, even under the Rule relied on by the authorities, is unauthorised and illegal. Mr. Ghose is fair enough to offer refund of the rental realised for the aforesaid period and on the concession so made by Mr. Ghose, I would direct the respondents to refund the rental which had illegally been realised from the petitioner for the aforesaid period from August 5, 1972 to March 30, 1973. 8. Mr. Ghose is fair enough to offer refund of the rental realised for the aforesaid period and on the concession so made by Mr. Ghose, I would direct the respondents to refund the rental which had illegally been realised from the petitioner for the aforesaid period from August 5, 1972 to March 30, 1973. 8. Proceeding on to consider the dispute as to whether the respondents could lawfully claim and realise rental for the period from May 27, 1970 till August 5, 1972, it should be pointed out that it is not in dispute that the respondents in the correspondence referred to hereinbefore relied on a rule to claim that the petitioner has to go on paying the rental for such period as would make him either factually or notionally hold the telephone in the original exchange No. 23 for a period of three years and thus acquire the eligibility for getting a transfer. This position has explicitly been made clear by the respondents in the aforesaid letters dated May 26, 1970 and August 7, 1971. The rule referred to in these two letters, however, was not disclosed to the petitioner earlier but has since been disclosed by the respondents in their Affidavit-in-opposition andis Annexure 'X' to the affidavit-in-opposition. I set out the entire document as hereunder :- Indian Post and Telegraphs Department Office of The Director General of Post And Telegraphs Sardar Square, Parliament Street, New Delhi-I. No. 11-7/67-PHA/Coll.XIII Dt. New Delhi-1 the September, 1968 To All Head of Circle, All Heads of Telephone Districts. Sub: Shift of telephone connection-policy of. It has been decided that para 2(1) of the instructions issued under this office letter No. 11-7/67PHA/Coll-XIII dated 6th February, 1968 may be substituted by the followings :- (1). In multi-exchange areas, the shift should normally be allowed either if the date of initial application for the new telephone connection falls within the release period of the specifid category pertaining to the exchange, to which it is required to be shifted or if the telephone has worked for a period of at least three years in the exchange area from where it is required to be shifted, whichever is earlier. The Heads of Circles/Districts, may. however, exercise their discretion in case of exception nature. Please acknowledge receipt. Sd/- Marous Delima. Deputy Director General (T). Endorsement No. CAG.3000jProc-Dated 12.9.68. Sd/P. G. Nandy, Contract Officer III, Calcutta Telephones. 9. The Heads of Circles/Districts, may. however, exercise their discretion in case of exception nature. Please acknowledge receipt. Sd/- Marous Delima. Deputy Director General (T). Endorsement No. CAG.3000jProc-Dated 12.9.68. Sd/P. G. Nandy, Contract Officer III, Calcutta Telephones. 9. It is evident from the documents as above that the relevant Rule on which the respondents so relied in enforcing the petitioner to go on paying rental even after the surrender of his previous telephone on May 27, 1970 is an administrative rule issued from the office of the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs but is not a part of the Rule framed under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Mr. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the respondents has not disputed the position that unless the respondents can enforce the obligation as under this administrative rule there is no other legal sanction for the disputed realisation. Mr. Bose the learned counsel for the petitioner has, on the otherhand, every strongly contended that such an administrative rule could not have imposed an obligation like the one imposed in the present case. 10. Mr. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the respondents has not disputed the proposition that unless the respondents can enforce the obligation as under this administrative rule, they could not have imposed an obligation like the one imposed in the present case. 11. To consider the rival contentions it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is not in dispute that the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 govern the case. The telephone service comes within the definition clause of telegraph and under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act the Central Government has the exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs. Section 7(1) of the Act provides as follows; "The Central Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules consistent with this Act for the conduct of all or any telegraphs established, maintained or worked by the Government or by persons licensed under this Act". Section 7(1) of the Act provides as follows; "The Central Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules consistent with this Act for the conduct of all or any telegraphs established, maintained or worked by the Government or by persons licensed under this Act". Section 7 (2) in its relevant part provides as follows:- "(2) Rules under this section may provide for all or any of the following, among other matters, that is to say" e) the conditions and restrictions subject to which any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus for telegraphic communication shall be established, maintained, worked, repaired, transferred, shifted, withdrawn or disconnected ; f) the charges in respect of- (i) the establishment, maintenance, working, repair, transfer or shifting of any telegraph line, applicance or apparatus ;... … … g) the matters in connection with the, transition from a system whereunder rights and obligations relating to the establishment, maintenance, working, repair, transfer or shifting of any telegraph line, appliance, or apparatus for telegraphic communication attach by virtue of any agreement to a system whereunder such rights and obligations attach by virtue of rules made under this section; ... … i) the payment of compensation to the Central Government for any loss incurred in connection with the provision of any telegraph line, applicance, or apparatus for the benefit of any person-(a) where the line, appliance or apparatus is, after it has been connected for use, given up by that person before the expiration of the period fixed by these rules, or b) where the work done for the purpose of providing the line, appliance or apparatus is, before it is connected for use, rendered abortive by some act or omission on the part of that person";... Section 7 (5) required that the rules so framed by the Central. Government shall be laid before each House of Parliament while it is in session for a total period of thirty days and will be subject to such modification or direction as both the Houses may agree to make or give. 12. There is no dispute that appropriate rules have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under section 7 and in such rules there is no provision imposing an obligation like the one imposed by the administrative rules relied on by Mr. Ghose on behalf of the respondents. 12. There is no dispute that appropriate rules have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under section 7 and in such rules there is no provision imposing an obligation like the one imposed by the administrative rules relied on by Mr. Ghose on behalf of the respondents. Rule 413 provides the telephone connections. Under Rule 413 all telephone connections and other similar services unless otherwise governed by the contract be subject to the conditions set forth in these rules. Rule 414 provides that applications for the provisions of Telephone or for alteration of any existing service shall be made in writing and in such form or manner as may from time to time be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority. Rule 415 deals with withdrawal of application for new connection or shift. Rule 416 provides for powers of the Telegraph Authority and this rule authorises the Telegraph Authority to refuse to comply with any application for a telephone or similar service or for alteration of any such existing service and further authorises total or partial withdrawal of any telephone service. Rule 421 authorises disconnection of any existing service but further provides that in case of such disconnection the subscriber shall be entitled to refund of rent for the unexpired portion of the period for which the connection or service was given. Rule 431 provides for surrender of telephone apparatus and Rule 432 provides for notice of surrender. Under Rule 433 if the subscriber vacates the premises in which the telephone is fitted the Telegraph Authority shall be at liberty to recover the apparatus and accessories without affecting the subscriber's liability to payment of rent and charges thereof. 13. These are all the provisions under the Act and the Rules on the subject. The administrative Rule relied on by the respondents, in clear terms prescribes a condition-and a restriction subject to which the Telephone line or the connection can be shifted for the shift or the transfer. But as indicated hereinbefore although section 7 lays down that it is for the Central Government to lay down in the rules framed under that section the required conditions and restrictions, the same have not been so prescribed by the Rules framed under the Act but have been prescribed on the otherhand by the administrative rule. 14. But as indicated hereinbefore although section 7 lays down that it is for the Central Government to lay down in the rules framed under that section the required conditions and restrictions, the same have not been so prescribed by the Rules framed under the Act but have been prescribed on the otherhand by the administrative rule. 14. The short question, therefore, before me is as to whether respondents had any legal authority to add to the conditions and restrictions prescribed by the statutory rules by an administrative rule as had been done in the present case. In my opinion, the answer must be in the negative and the reason is very simple and obvious. In making the statutory provisions in section 7 the Legislature had prescribed the mode and the manner in which such conditions and restrictions can be imposed. When the Legislature in its wisdom has prescribed that such conditions and restrictions should be imposed by framing of rules under Section 7 which again under Section 7(5) should have the sanction of the Legislature, in my opinion, if the condition and restriction is to be imposed it must be so done in accordance with the mandate of the statute and not otherwise. It is a settled principle that if law prescribes that a particular thing should be done in a particular manner, it must necessarily be done in the manner prescribed and not otherwise. This being the position and when there can be no dispute that the obligation sought to be imposed by the administrative rule relied on by Mr. Ghose is patently a condition and a restriction in the matter of shifting of a telephone connection, such obligation, if at all, could be imposed by amendment of the rules framed under Section 7 and not by the administrative rule. Rule 414 of the Rules cannot be read as any authority for imposition of such a condition or restriction. Firstly, that rule only authorises the Telegraph Authority to prescribe the form and the manner of making an application. In prescribing the manner, such authority can only prescribe the mode or procedure for making of an application but does not authorise such authority to prescribe any condition or restriction to the shifting or transfer of a connection. Firstly, that rule only authorises the Telegraph Authority to prescribe the form and the manner of making an application. In prescribing the manner, such authority can only prescribe the mode or procedure for making of an application but does not authorise such authority to prescribe any condition or restriction to the shifting or transfer of a connection. Secondly, if that rule be interpreted to authorise imposition of such condition or restriction it would amount to unauthorised sub-delegation contrary to the mandate of the statute itself. 15. For reasons aforesaid the administrative rule relied on by the respondents must be held to be ultra vires their powers being contrary to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. Such being the position the necessary conclusion which follows is that when the respondents realised the rental from the petitioner for the period May 27, 1970 to August 5, 1972 in order to confer eligibility on the petitioner to get the shift in term's of the aforesaid administrative rule, they did it illegally and I hold as such. It is however, unfortunate, that when the petitioner has not asked for any appropriate mandate for refund of this amount, notwithstanding my finding that the realisation was illegal, there can be no order for refund on the present application. 16. On the conclusions as above this Rule is made absolute. It is declared that the Respondents acted illegally in realising rental from the petitioner on and from May 27, 1970 on the basis of the administrative rule which was ultra vires their powers. There would, however be a mandate to refund or adjust the conceded amount of rental illegally realised for the period August 6, 1972 to March 30, 1973. Let a Writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue incorporating the above directions. When the petitioner was subjected to unjust harasment and costs and when the respondents had not given the reconnection even after the he had acquired the eligibility on the respondents' own showing, until a rule was issued by this Court, the petitioner must be appropriately compensated by an order of costs in his favour which I hereby direct the hearing fee being assessed at twenty gold mohurs. The operation of this order remain stayed for a period of six weeks from to day.