Order Aftab Alam, J. The two telephone connections from the Patna Telephones that the petitioner got installed appear to keep him quite busy, busy not in the use of the instruments but in litigation with the department over arbitrary and excessive billing and for getting the lines restored. On earlier occasions also the petitioner came to this Court when his telephone lines could be restored only by the intervention of this Court. This time the petitioner's telephone connection bearing number 52415 was admittedly disconnected on 8.2.1991 for non payment of bill dated 21.4.1990 amounting to Rs. 4,200/-. On demand the petitioner was not given any breakup of this bill and as stated his telephone line was disconnected for nonpayment of the same. The petitioner came to this Court with the instant writ application. On 10.5.1991 a Bench of this Court passed the following order : Pat up this case after summer vacation. "In the mean time, the enquiry, as suggested by the learned Counsel for the telephones Department, should be completed. The telephone connection bearing telephone no. 52415 should be restored forthwith. "Mr. Ghose undertakes that if any amount is found due then he will make Payment." Pursuant to this order the telephone connection was restored only to be disconnected again on 3.8.1991 for non-payment of some bills. The petitioner filed another petition (at flag 'A') complaining against fresh disconnection and praying for a direction to restrain the department from disconnecting the telephone line in question till the matter was finally settled by this Court. This petition along with the main writ application was again taken up on 19.8.1991 when we passed the following order : 'Heard Mr. Ghose for the petitioner and Mr. Jaiswal for the respondents. 'The telephone line of the petitioner should be restored forthwith. Mr. Jaiawal furnish the telephone accounts of the petitioner from the 1st January, 1990, till date before us on the next Monday (26.8.1991), the appointed date, when further direction in connection with the dispute regarding payment of telephone bill. will be given. Following our order the petitioner's telephone line has again been restored and a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1. This counter affidavit encloses, as Annexure-A, 'the billing and payment position in respect of telephone no.52415 since January, 1990. From Annexure-A it appears that according to the department the following bills remain unpaid by the petitioner : 1. Following our order the petitioner's telephone line has again been restored and a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1. This counter affidavit encloses, as Annexure-A, 'the billing and payment position in respect of telephone no.52415 since January, 1990. From Annexure-A it appears that according to the department the following bills remain unpaid by the petitioner : 1. 21.4.1990 Rs. 4200/- Unpaid (rent for Pan-103 (2) for 4 years.) 2. 21.22.1991 Rs. 0200/- Unpaid 3. 21.4.1991 Rs. 1200/- Paid Rs. 200/- on 21.5.1991 (one thousand dues). 4. 15.6.1991 Rs. 0200/- Unpaid 5. 15.8.1991 Rs. 0375/- Unpaid At serial no.1, bill dated 21.4.1990 relates to the rental for the months of May and June, 1990 amounting to Rs 200/- in addition to the annual rent for the past 4 years between 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1991, at the rate of Rs. 500/- each for two internal extension with intercommunication facilities attached to the main instrument. This amounted to Rs. 4,000/-. In this connection it is to be noted that in the main writ application itself the petitioner has asserted vide paragraph 25 that 'the defect of intercommunication as also operating machine itself were never properly rectified and the intercommunication never worked from 1985 and one lineman from Rajendra Negar, claimed to have come from Darbhanga tried to rectify the defeat in the line. He removed it from the line kept it separate and promised to come on the next day, but over three months have passed none has turned up'. Averments In similar vain arc to be found in other paragraphs of the writ petition as well. Moreover, the petitioner has annexed copies of the complaints petitions which were filed by him In this regard from time to time before the authorities of the department. Annexure-l is a copy of a complain dated 9.5.1987 addressed to the District Manager. Telephones, Patna under registered post. This makes a complaint in respect of the intercommunication system. Annexure-2 is a copy of letter dated 5.9.1988 addressed to the District Manager, Telephones, Patna in which it is said that intercommunication system in the telephone in question had not been working for the last several years, although a sum of Rs 1000/- was paid for the same and the efforts to make the same workable failed so far. Annexure-2 is a copy of letter dated 5.9.1988 addressed to the District Manager, Telephones, Patna in which it is said that intercommunication system in the telephone in question had not been working for the last several years, although a sum of Rs 1000/- was paid for the same and the efforts to make the same workable failed so far. It was further dated in that letter as follows: 'I have requested once before and I again reiterate for its disconnection and simple extension may be operated. Again in letter dated 25th December, 1990 (copy enclose as Annexure-5/1 to the writ application) addressed to the District Manager, Telephones, Patna on receiving the bill in question the petitioner stated as follows : "I have been regularly complaining against non-working of the intercommunication system which was fitted to my aforesaid telephone no. and no effort has been made during these years to rectify the defect." As against this the respondent in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit makes an evasive and vague reply. Paragraph 8 of the Counter-affidavit is extracted below : "That the statement made in paragraph 25 of the writ petition that the inter communication facility navel worked from 1985 is not accepted." On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the materials placed before us it is not possible to accept that the two extensions of the main instrument with intercommunication facilities were actually in working and operational conditions during the period 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1991 and that the department is entitled to charge the annual rental for the game. From the regular contemperaneous complaints made by the petitioner it appears, on the other hand, that those extra facilities attached to the main instrument were actually non-functional and, accordingly the petitioner is not liable to pay any rent for the slime for that period. The next bill in the above mentioned list is one dated 21.2.1991 and this relates to the rental charge of the instrument for the months of February and March, 1991. Now admittedly, the petitioner’s telephone line was disconnected on 8.2.1991 and it was restored only pursuant to this Court's order dated 10.5.1991. The next bill in the above mentioned list is one dated 21.2.1991 and this relates to the rental charge of the instrument for the months of February and March, 1991. Now admittedly, the petitioner’s telephone line was disconnected on 8.2.1991 and it was restored only pursuant to this Court's order dated 10.5.1991. In case the disconnection was for non-payment of a bill which the petitioner was legally obliged to pay, the position would have been otherwise but here the line was disconnected, admittedly for non-payment of bill dated 21.4.1990 which I have just held to be unjustified and non-payable by the petitioner. In other words, for the month of February and March, 1991, the petitioner's telephone line remain disconnected on account of non-payment of a bill which in any event the petitioner was not obliged to pay. For this reason I held that the department is not justified to charging rental for these two months and the petitioner is not obliged to pay the bill dated 21.2.1991. The next bill is dated 21.4.1991 and is now shown to be for Rs. 1,200/-. This relates to the rent for the main instrument for the months of April and may, 1991 (amounting to Rs. 200/-) and the anual rental for the two extensions for the period 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992 (amounting to Rs.1,000/-). Out of the total amount of Rs.1260/- the petitioner has admittedly paid Rs. 200/- on 21.5.1991. The total amount of this bill as given in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit is quite curious inasmuch as a photo stat copy of the actual bill given to the petitioner has been enclosed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The photo copy of this bill records only Rs. 200/- as next amount payable being the rental charges for May and June, 1991. In addition to this bill also records the arrear of Rs. 4,200/- as under the bill dated 21.4.1990. There is however, no mention of the rental for the extensions for the period 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992 as is being clamed in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. This appears to be an after thought when this writ application was filed in this Court. In addition to this bill also records the arrear of Rs. 4,200/- as under the bill dated 21.4.1990. There is however, no mention of the rental for the extensions for the period 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992 as is being clamed in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. This appears to be an after thought when this writ application was filed in this Court. Moreover, I have already held that the petitioner is not liable to pay any rental for the extensions with intercommunication facilities as the same are not in a functioning condition and unless the same is restored to a fully operational state, the department shall not be justified in charging any rental for the same. Hence I find and hold that the petitioner is not liable to pay the sum of Rs. 1,000/- alleged to be due on the basis of the bill dated 21.4.1991. The two remaining bills are dated 15.6.1991 and 15.8.1991 for Rs. 200/- and 375/-, respectively. Those, the petitioner is surely liable to pay and must pay the same, if not already paid, within one week from today. In case these last two bills are duly paid by the petitioner the department shall not interfere with the petitioners telephone connection bearing no. 52415. It is hoped and expected that the department shall bur the petitioner in future properly and the petitioner shall pay all his bills in time. In case the department is not able to restore the two extensions with intercommunication facilities attached to the main instrument of this line it will be well advised to remove them altogether from the petitioner’s premises to avoid any dispute or controversy in this regard in future. In the results this writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above, but without any order as to costs. S.B. Sanyal, J. - I agree After the order was pronounced Mr. B.C. Ghose having gone through our order very fairly stated that inter communication facilities have been changed in May 1991 in pursuance of the High Court's order and since then the two extension instruments are functioning properly and to his full satisfaction. S.B. Sanyal, J. - I agree After the order was pronounced Mr. B.C. Ghose having gone through our order very fairly stated that inter communication facilities have been changed in May 1991 in pursuance of the High Court's order and since then the two extension instruments are functioning properly and to his full satisfaction. He further volunteered that it will not be proper on his part not to pay the rental for the two extension instruments for the year 1991-92 i.e. for the period 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992 and he states that he has, in fact, brought the cheque for the said amount anticipating the payment to be made on that score. We appreciate this gesture from Mr. Ghose, we amend the order to the extent that the bill for the rental for the two extensions for the period 1991-92 shall be payable by the petitioner and the lame shall be duly accepted by the Department. The petitioner may make this payment within one week from today. In view of the order we have just now passed the portion in the earlier order beginning with In case the department is not able to restore......... ... ...any dispute or controversy in this regard in future is apparently redundant and not to be given effect to, Sd/ S.B. Sanyal. Sd/ Aftab Alam. Application allowed in part. (Note-It is regretted that name of Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate who argued on behalf of the petitioner is not printed by mistake. Jt. Editer