MURALIDHARA RAO, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS assail the order at Annexure-'c' by which Phone No. 24731 is disconnected. Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited Company and 2nd petitioner is one of the Directors of the Company. Phone No. 24731 is allotted to the first Petitioner-Company. ( 2 ) THERE is another Company by name M/s. International Coach Builder (P) Ltd. The second petitioner and Mr. M. C. Morzaria are the Directors of this Company. No phone is allotted to this Company. ( 3 ) IT is not disputed that the offices of both these companies are located in the same. premises namely 225/a, Rajamahal Vilas Extension, Bangalore, and phone No. 24731 is installed in this premises. ( 4 ) ON 30th of May 1985, respondent issued a show cause notice to the first petitioner. It states that "it has come to the notice that phone is being used by M/s. International Coach Builder (P) Ltd. , unauthorisedly; this misuse being by a person other than original hirer, entails disconnection". Seven days time was stipulated to give reply. On 6th June, 1985, the first petitioner filed reply, denying misuse and requested the department to verify. On 12-7-1985, Area Manager, P. and T. Department issued letter marked Annexure-'c' to the effect that the "reasons mentioned by the petitioner are not satisfactory". Hence impugned orders were issued for disconnection. ( 5 ) MR. Ramesh appearing for the petitioners contended that the action is arbitrary, in that, there is no material to establish that there has been a misuse of the phone, by a person other than hirer. He characterised the action as based on assumption and surmises, rather than factual realities. The respondents have filed counter; in para 3, they state as follows :-". . . . . . . THE field staff of the telephone department noticed that after such shifting of the telephone to the new place, the telephone was being used regularly by person other than the petitioner for whose use alone it had been provided. Annexure-B, produced with the petition itself clearly establishes that this telephone was being regularly used by one M/s. International Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. another company registered under the Companies Act. Annexure-B, produced with the petition itself clearly establishes that this telephone was being regularly used by one M/s. International Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. another company registered under the Companies Act. It is submitted that this company is a separate legal entity from the 1st petitioner company and the mere fact that some of the directors are common to the two companies will in no way detract from the clear legal position. "again in para 7, it is stated thus :". . . . . SO long as M/s. International Coach Builders (P) Ltd. is not a subscriber and it is allowed the regular use of the telephone provided to the 1st petitioner it is a clear misuse and the action taken by the respondents is not only within their jurisdiction but also legal and warranted in the circumstances of the case. " ( 6 ) WHILE the respondents bank upon alleged misuse of phone by non-hirers, they have not demonstrated how they have come to this conclusion. There is no verification regarding the fact of misuse by non-hirers. The fact that two companies are located in the same premises does not mean that the phone is being used mainly by the non-hirer company. The respondents have no device or detectors to know the misuse by non-hirer. They have not furnished any data or statistics, with reference to calls made or received by non-hirer company. The non-hirer company may be a defunct company or a company with no business or may have been incorporated for several other collateral reasons or may be in its infancy. It may be that it may be using the phone for casual calls, as is permitted by R. 429a in Part V of the Rules. Mr. Shailendra Kumar relied on R. 421, which empowers the Divisional Engineer to disconnect the phone, the said rule reads thus :"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. "the rule requires the following :- (A) the satisfaction of the authority; (b) reasons to be recorded in writing. The scope and ambit of this rule is explained thus by a Bench of Gujarat High Court in Union of India v. Narayanbhai, AIR 1985 Guj 31 :"if the Telephone Department is permitted to apply its own standard in effecting disconnection or to make a subjective approach to the question, the consequence may be disastrous. That cannot be permitted, due regard being had to the constitutional rights of citizens. Rule 421 no doubt speaks only of a notice. Every rule must be read and interpreted to the extent possible to render it reasonable and within constitutional limits. Therefore, when R. 421 speaks of notice, it is not to be understood as an empty formality of a notice of disconnection but a notice indicating as to why and for what reason disconnection is intended. That will enable the subscriber on whom the notice is served to place facts before the concerned authority so that the decision to actually disconnect may be taken after due regard is paid to the materials available. The subscriber on being intimated of the reason may find that such reason is true as for instance, the reason of arrears and he may have nothing to present by way of objection. On the other hand, it may be a case where patently there is an error in the approach and the subscriber may be able to convince the authority of it, given a chance. We read R. 421 as needing such an approach and calling for such a construction. . . . "similar view is expressed by Subramonian Poti J. , in Ananthappan v. District Manager, Telephones, AIR 1980 Ker 201 . At para 6 it is stated thus :". . . . . THERE is a plea raised in the petition that as required by R. 421 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, there is no order recording reasons in writing. Though the counter-affidavit mentions that this is not correct what the order was and when was that passed are not mentioned in the counter-affidavit. . . . . THERE is a plea raised in the petition that as required by R. 421 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, there is no order recording reasons in writing. Though the counter-affidavit mentions that this is not correct what the order was and when was that passed are not mentioned in the counter-affidavit. Rule 421 provides that 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. His satisfaction could only be after investigation. The notice contemplated in R. 421 is a notice to be issued after such satisfaction. . . . . . . " ( 7 ) RULE 421 does not say that misuse of phone by a non-hirer entails disconnection. The reasons which authorise disconnection are mentioned in Rr. 420, 422, and 423. Rule 420 deals with the subscribers being adjudged as insolvents or suffer execution to be levied upon his premises or commits any breach or fail to comply with rules. Rule 422 provides for disconnection due to emergency, R. 424 provides for disconnection due to excessive calls and non-compliance with the request of additional connection. Rule 429a provides for causal use by an outsider. Rule 427 speaks of illegal or improper use of phones, which prohibits use of phone to disturb or irritate any person, use of indecent or obscene language or use of language likely to annoy a person. ( 8 ) THE above being the relevant rules on the subject, casual use, by a non-subscriber would not authorise the department to order disconnection. In the instant case the show cause notice gives only one reason i. e. the use of the phone by a person other than hirer. Such use, if it is casual, is not impermissible. The order at Annexure-'c' is a non-speaking order, quite contrary to Rule 421, which requires the recording of satisfaction, as also, the reasons, preceded by investigation. ( 9 ) MR. Shailendra Kumar sought to derive support from Harphool Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1985 Punj and Har 28. That was a case of shifting of phone from one premises to another premises. ( 9 ) MR. Shailendra Kumar sought to derive support from Harphool Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1985 Punj and Har 28. That was a case of shifting of phone from one premises to another premises. Regarding the reason that the phone was "being used by somebody other than actual subscriber", the learned Judge observed thus :". . . . . . . . IF this reason is to be taken as enough of a justification in law for disconnecting a telephone connection and is to be taken to its logical end then in all probability, every telephone would have to be disconnected as in that situation the use of telephone even by a family member of the subscriber would provide the respondent-authorities with enough of a ground to disconnect the same. "the above observation lends support to petitioner. With respect I agree with the above reasoning. ( 10 ) MR. Shailendra Kumar submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by arbitration, hence he is not entitled to any relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Such a plea when advanced before delhi High Court, it was repelled. The said case dealt with disconnection of Telephone, petitions were allowed and restoration was directed. ( 11 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to justify the action of respondents. The impugned show cause notice (Annexure-'a') and order at Annexure-'c' are illegal and cannot be sustained. Hence I make the following order :- (1) Rule made absolute; writ petition allowed. (2) Annexures - 'a' and 'c' quashed (3) Respondents are directed to restore phone 24731, forthwith, as per rules. No costs. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .