JUDGMENT The Court: Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and for the Telegraph authorities it appears that M/s. Bahubali Udyog, a partnership Firm and its two partners viz. Sri Dharmendra Kumar Jain and Monoj Kumar Jain have prayed for telephone connection by complying with the necessary formalities as envisaged. 2. The objection of the Telegraph authorities is that previously the father of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 viz. Mahendra Kumar Jain had another business and the telephone connection in the name of M/s. Bahubali Transport Corporation Mahendra Kumar Jain as the proprietor has defaulted in payment of telephone bills and the petitioners are not entitled to obtain any new connection without paying the arrear dues. 3. Attention of this Court has been drawn to R. 416 by the learned Advocate appearing for the Telegraph authorities. Mr. Debnath has laid much emphasis upon the expression as to the antecedent of the applicant and according to him, the telephone authority may reject considering the antecedent. Since the sons had participated in the business of the charges, they cannot ask for a new telephone connection. 4. With great anxiety this Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. Certainly under R. 416 the telephone authority may consider the antecedent of the applicants before they are entitled to obtain the telephone connection. But if the father had committed an offence by not paying the charges, adult sons starting a new business and having a separate legal entity cannot be denied to have the right of a new telephone connection. For father's sin the sons cannot be penalised and unless there is direct nexus as to the offence committed.' For the aforesaid reason the objections raised by the telephone authorities are found to be not just and right. 5. This writ petition is allowed by issuing an appropriate writ directing the telephone authorities to take effective steps to grant a separate new telephone connection to the petitioner firm within 6 weeks from the date of compliance all necessary formalities as prescribed under law and on payment of all necessary fees as required to be paid. This order will not, however, give the petitioner any priority for obtaining the connection. This order will not also prevent the Telephone Authorities to initiate proceeding to realise the dues from the defaulter party according to law. 6. No order as to costs. This order will not, however, give the petitioner any priority for obtaining the connection. This order will not also prevent the Telephone Authorities to initiate proceeding to realise the dues from the defaulter party according to law. 6. No order as to costs. 7. All parties to act on the operative portion of this judgment on the usual undertaking. Application allowed.