H. G. BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned central government standing counsel for the respondent. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the following are the facts:a partnership firm carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Vijayam agencies preferred an application for a telephone in the name of vijayam agencies on 15-5-1978 duly depositing the stipulated amount of Rs. 1,000/ -. Thereafter the firm requested for conversion of the requirement of telephone service to oyt (own your telephone) category by writing a letter dated 16-5-1978. For the said purpose an amount of Rs. 4,000/- was deposited by the firm on 16-5-1978. After the telephone was converted into oyt category having the number 41554, on 14-8-1978 the number was changed to 600493. ' ( 3 ) THE partnership firm consisted of Six Partners viz. , C. V. Krishnamurthy, J. Geetha, K. Vijaya Kumar, Arun Kumar, K. Madhu sudhan and K. Venkatesh. On 1-8-1984 on behalf of the firm, intimation was sent to the respondent to the effect that one person by name J. Geetha had withdrawn from the partnership on 1-8-1984, firm also submitted form-a issued by the registrar of firms showing that in all 3 partners had retired and they are J. Geetha on 31-12-1983, K. Madhu Sudhan on 31-08-1982 and K. Venkatesh on 31-12-1983. In this situation, the telephone department on receipt of the above intimation by the firm regarding the retirement of 3 partners out of 6, issued an endorsement dated 6-6-1984 vide annexure-b. It is this endorsement which has caused grievance to the petitioner. The letter reads as follows: "sir (s)/madam, sub. : Transfer of phone No. 600493 now standing in the name of sri/m/s. Vijayam agencies to the name of sri/m/s. Vijayam agencies. Ref. : Your letter No. Va/78, dated 28-5- 1984. The question of transfer of the above telephone to the name of M/s. Vijayam agencies can be considered only after the production of all the relevant documents required in this connection. The detailed instructions in this regard are enclosed at Annexure-I to this letter. (1) an application for transfer of telephone is herewith sent which may please be duly filled in and returned. (2) consent letter (specimen copy of which is enclosed) executed by the transferor on a nonjudicial stamp paper of not less than Rs. The detailed instructions in this regard are enclosed at Annexure-I to this letter. (1) an application for transfer of telephone is herewith sent which may please be duly filled in and returned. (2) consent letter (specimen copy of which is enclosed) executed by the transferor on a nonjudicial stamp paper of not less than Rs. 2-50 duly witnessed by two persons with their addressed and attested by a gazetted officer has to be furnished. (3) the transferee should furnish an undertaking (specimen copy of which is enclosed) on a non-judicial stamp paper of not less than Rs. 2-50 duly witnessed by two persons with their addresses and attested by a gazetted officer. The documents may please be forwarded to this office within thirty days of receipt of this letter so that we may examine the case and communicate our decision in this matter. Incidentally, we may also inform you that the use of the phone by any person other than the original hirer without being approved by this department is untenable and contravenes the departmental rules and your telephone is liable for disconnection on the grounds of misuse. Your kind co-operation in the matter will be very much appreciated. Yours faithfully, sd/-xxx5/6/ for general manager, telephones, Bangalore-9. Note: any change in Constitution in a partnership concern involves transfer of phone. In addition you are requested to submit form-a and partnership deeds from the date of installation of the phone till the date in order to process the transfer case. " ( 4 ) THE petitioner has sought for a declaration that a change in the Constitution of the partnership firm as a result of incoming and outgoing partners does not involve a transfer of telephone and also for a mandamus directing the respondent to forbear from invoking the Provisions from transfer of telephone against the petitioner and also for quashing the endorsement dated 6-6-1984 vide annexure-b. ( 5 ) THE point for consideration is whether the retirement of 3 partners out of 6 would amount to a change in the Constitution of the partnership firm attracting the Provisions relating to transfer of a telephone. ( 6 ) THE admitted facts are that there were six partners in vijayam agencies at the time when an application was made for the grant of telephone service. ( 6 ) THE admitted facts are that there were six partners in vijayam agencies at the time when an application was made for the grant of telephone service. On an application made by the firm consisting of six partners, telephone service was granted to the petitioner firm and not to any individual partner or individual proprietor. In course of time, 3 partners retired from the firm on different dates. J. Geetha retired on 31-12-1983, K. Madhu Sudhan on 31-8-1982 and K. Venkatesh on 31-12-1983. The other partners remained over and continued the partnership business as it existed. In other words, the partnership firm viz. , Vijayam agencies to whom telephone service had been granted continued to function with less number of partners. There was no transfer of partnership business from one firm to another. The only change that took place was that there was diminution in the number of partners in the firm. The partnership firm did not undergo a change to become a proprietory concern nor the-business transferred to another concern whether as partnership or otherwise. In these circumstances, the question is whether the Provisions relating to transfer of telephone would arise at all. By operation of law transfer of telephone is sought to be made out by applying Rule 429 (2) (c) of the telephone rules framed under Section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 which reads thus: "transfer of a telephone in the name of a firm or company or of an institution or organisation or association or any similar body on account of any change in the name or Constitution or both of the said firm, company, institution, organisation, association or similar body. " Thus what is contemplated is a transfer of the telephone which is standing in the name of a firm in so far as the facts of this case are concerned. Such a transfer of telephone should have taken place on account of any change in the name or the Constitution of the firm. Therefore, in order to apply provision of Rule 429 (2) (c) of the rules, two conditions are necessary, and they are: that there shall be a transfer of telephone resulting from a change in the name of a firm and such a transfer of telephone should have taken place as a result of any change in the Constitution of the firm. A reduction in the number of partners of the partnership firm from 6 to 3, resulting in mere change in the number of partners does not either alter the Constitution or bring about a transfer of telephone. In the instant case, vijayam agencies is the partnership firm to which telephone facility was granted by the department when there was six partners in the firm. In course of time 3 partners retired, but the other 3 partners continued the business as on the date when the endorsement vide Annexure-B was received. Thus there is no transfer of business. There is no transfer of business from one firm to another. The name of the firm continues unchanged. The only change that is noticeable is that there is a reduction in the numr ber of partners. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to reconcile that there could be a transfer of telephone from one to another. The only question is whether there is any transfer at all, when the supposed transferor and transferee are one and the same, from vijayam agencies to vijayam agencies there is no transfer of telephone at all in the circumstances of the case and such a transfer is only a figment of imagination. I can understand if any on the date when the intimation was sent by the petitioner under annexure-a, all the partners had retired from the firm and new partners had taken over the firm, or the partnership firm had undergone radical change from a partnership firm to a proprietory concern thereby materially altering or changing the Constitution of the firm. In the absence of either of the events, I am unable to pursuade myself to accept the contention that it is a case of transfer of telephone attracting Rule 429 (2) (c) of the rules. In my opinion, there is no change in the Constitution and the communication sent to the petitioner vide Annexure-B is misconceived. Hence the following order: the writ petition is allowed and the impugned communication dated 6-6-1984 vide Annexure-B is quashed. In my opinion, there is no change in the Constitution and the communication sent to the petitioner vide Annexure-B is misconceived. Hence the following order: the writ petition is allowed and the impugned communication dated 6-6-1984 vide Annexure-B is quashed. It is hereby made clear that the alleged change in the Constitution of partnership resulting from retirement of 3 partners out of 6 does not involve the transfer of telephone and the respondent is hereby prohibited from invoking the Provisions of transfer of the telephone against the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case as they existed on the date of writ petition. --- *** --- .