BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) ALLEGED excess billing by the telephone department is the subject matter of this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, who is a retired i. p. s. officer, founded an investigation agency having the benefit of the installation of telephone in his office. ( 3 ) REPEATEDLY bills arrived at regular intervals demanding payment of amounts which, according to the petitioner, were excessive and exhorbitant and grossly out of proportion with the actual number of calls made. Representations were made by the petitioner to the respondents to investigate into the affair and to verify the bills with the fond hope that necessary rectification of mistakes would be made and proper bills would be served on him. The representations did not have the desired effect and to the retired i. p. s. officer it was a wild goose chase. Frustrated, the petitioner has approached this court for relief in the nature of a writ of ccrtiorari to quash annexures-c and f and the impugned endorsement under annexures-k dated 26-12-1983 and further for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner and to hold an investigation in accordance with law. ( 4 ) EXCESS billing by the telephone department has become the order of the day according to common knowledge. Eventhough these are only allegations which the complainants themselves cannot substantiate as they do not have the necessary means to substantiate, the only possible exercise they can indulge in is to make a representation to the authorities drawing their allcntion to billing which is both irrational and inaccurate requesting for a professional investigation followed by relief to the complainants. ( 5 ) IT is on record that the petitioner made several representations to the concerned authorities, but in vain. Since the amounts demanded are of substantial nature, the demands arc of material consequence to the petitioner and similarly the consequence of non-payment. The ends of Justice would be defeated if pending enquiry or possible investigation which in the instant case happened to be wishful thinking, the petitioner is compelled to pay amounts which could be regarded as grossly unreasonable. For non-payment pending investigation and enquiry, the department has the means to enforce disconnection of the telephone as a coercive measure to exact payments from the petitioner however unreasonable and unverified they may be. For non-payment pending investigation and enquiry, the department has the means to enforce disconnection of the telephone as a coercive measure to exact payments from the petitioner however unreasonable and unverified they may be. In these circumstances, it would be fair and proper to assume that the department would not be justified in disconnecting the telephone and also not justified in demanding payment of amounts which arc disputed without exerting itself to hold a satisfactory enquiry at all in the matter but not without petitioner's participation. On the one hand the department has embarked on an investigation and enquiry which the petitioner considers as dubious and on the other, the department has threatened disconnection if payment is not made within the stipulated period. Between the devil and the deep sea, the petitioner has no alternative unless the court interferes. The case is made worse by issue of stereo-type cyclostyled replies of having enquired into the matter. ( 6 ) THE matter could also be looked intoagainst the statutory back-ground. Para 439 read with para 442 of the posts and telegraph manual volume 14, envisage that only on the basis of non-payment of the charges demanded after service of the bills in the manner provided, a subscriber is said to be at default and the question of disconnection of the telephone for such default may arise. Service of the bill is a condition precedent for exercising the power of disconnection. Indeed the power of disconnection is too drastic particularly when the subscriber is disputing the correctness of the billing. As already pointed out, technically it is not possible for the subscriber to establish the incorrectness of the billing except by making an assertion that the number of calls shown in the bills is far in excess of the normally expectable calls that the petitioner would be making every month based on experience and past performance of the petitioner himself applying the yardstick of reasonable average of calls made during the period preceding the bills. Dislocation of business and inconvenience would be the fall-out of such a disconnection. In these circumstances, it would be neither fair nor reasonable for the department to deprive the subscriber of the facility of telephone service merely on the basis of alleged non-payment of assumed calls slated to have been made by the petitioner. Dislocation of business and inconvenience would be the fall-out of such a disconnection. In these circumstances, it would be neither fair nor reasonable for the department to deprive the subscriber of the facility of telephone service merely on the basis of alleged non-payment of assumed calls slated to have been made by the petitioner. Technicalities require proof of having made so many calls which are stated to have been made according to the bills served on the petitioner. It would be reasonable to shift the burden on the department to substantiate the number of calls which the petitioner is supposed to have made when he is repeatedly protesting through proper representations to the competent authorities at regular intervals that he has not made so many calls and that he is not liable to pay amounts which are far in excess of what he would have paid for if proper bills had been sent to him. In other words, the amount charged is not proportionate to the number of calls which, according to the petitioner, is actually made but is highly excessive and disproportionate, thus inviting the principle of proportionality. ( 7 ) IN the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the competent authority is under an obligation to examine the representations made by the petitioner, investigate and hold a meaningful enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the petitioner as well as the correctness of the charges made in the bills with an opportunity to the petitioner to present his case. Till such lime it would not be proper for the department to enforce payment of the amounts demanded in the bills except to the extent of collecting from the petitioner the average number of calls made for the prcvioussix months. ( 8 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the writ petitionis allowed and the impugned bills as well as the endorsement are quashed subject to the observations made above. It is open to the authorities to enquire into the matter afresh and after affording a reasonable opportunily of hearing to the petitioner dispose of the representations made by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law. This docs not, however, preclude the authorities from recovering whatever is legitimately due from the petitioner. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .