JUDGMENT S.S. Ahmad, J. - Petitioners telephone numbers are 35972 and 48925. These telephones have been disconnected and the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition for the reliefs, inter alia, that the opposite parties may be directed to restore the telephone connections. It has been pointed out that the petitioners telephones have been disconnected on account of the dues outstanding against telephone No. 49551 which admittedly does not being to the petitioners and which is lying disconnected. 2. When the case was taken up today counsel for both the parties agreed amongst themselves and prayed that the petition may be disposed of finally. 3. Sri D.S. Randhawa placed before us the instruction received by him which reads as under : - "The telephone No. 49551 worked for Sri Kareemullah, Shop No. 2 near Anand Cinema, Kaiserbagh, LKO, from 1971 to 13-6-1985. A notice dated 10-2-1986, by Accounts Officer (Telephone Revenue) of this department, was issued for the outstanding of the following dues : - 21-6-1983 0.50 21-2-1983 505.00 21-4-1984 1020.00 21-6-1984 1382.00 21-8-1984 876.00 21-10-1984 2208.00 21-12-1984 2828.00 21-2-1985 2864.00 21-4-1985 1692.00 21-6-1985 1676.00 21-8-1985 530.00 Cost of instrument 400.00 ____________ 15,881.50 ____________ Shri Ibrahim Ansari was contracted on 21-8-1986 and 25-8-1986 by the T.R.I. of this department and Shri Ansari owned verbally the liabilities of the above telephone dues of Shri Kareemullah and assured to make payment in instalments. When no payment was received as promised his working telephone 48925 was disconnected. Consequent upon this disconnection Rs. 1020 for the bill dated 21-4-1984 was paid on 3-6-15 87 and the telephone No. 48925 was restored on the same date i.e. 3-6-1987. After non-receipt of further payment the working phone 49551 was again disconnected on 7-9-1987 and again Rs. 1382 was received on 19-10-1987 for the bill dated 21-6-1984 and the said telephone restored on 19-10-1987. The similar incident happened again and again and the said telephone had to be disconnected again on 7-12-1987 and the petitioner again paid Rs. 2568 on 10.12-1987 (the bill dated 21-8-1984 for Rs. 876 and the bill dated 21-4-1985 for Rs. 1692) and the phone under reference was restored on 10-12-1987. Again payment of Rs. 2208 was received on 18-3-1988. A notice was issued on 19-4-1988 and the reminder was issued on 3-5-1988. Reminder issued on 21-6-1988. 2568 on 10.12-1987 (the bill dated 21-8-1984 for Rs. 876 and the bill dated 21-4-1985 for Rs. 1692) and the phone under reference was restored on 10-12-1987. Again payment of Rs. 2208 was received on 18-3-1988. A notice was issued on 19-4-1988 and the reminder was issued on 3-5-1988. Reminder issued on 21-6-1988. Due to non response the telephone No. 48925 was ordered to be disconnected on 2-7-1988 and another working telephone No. 35972 was also ordered to be disconnected on 12-7-1988. The following bills are still lying unpaid- 21-12-1984 2828 21-2-1985 2864 21-6-1985 1676 Exclusive of the cost of 21-8-1985 530 telephone instrument. __________ 7,898 __________ The party again visited this office and asked for the bill for payment and at his verbal request a bill for Rs. 1676 was issued on 18-8-1988. All the time Shri Ibrahim Ansari s/o Shri Naseem Ullah used to pick up bills and was making payment on behalf of Shri Kareem Ullah. The above said payments were made by Shri Ibrahim Ansari. The said petitioner used to contract the TRI of this office and was in habit of making promises to clear the dues pending towards 49551 which was in the name of Sri Kareem Ullah, for reasons best known to him." 4. Having gone through the instructions and after having heard the parties counsel we are of the opinion that the opposite parties were not justified in disconnecting the petitioners telephones and coercing them to make the payment of the dues against telephone No. 49551. The method adopted by the opposite parties in realising the dues from the petitioner and in disconnecting off and on their telephones for the bills outstanding against telephone No. 49551 was contrary to law. 5. We accordingly allow the writ petition and direct the opposite parties to restore the petitioners telephone Nos. 35972 and 48925 within forty-eight hours leaving it open to the opposite parties to realise the dues outstanding against telephone No. 49551 in accordance with law. Petitioners will also be entitled to the costs.