JUDGMENT - M.L. DUDHAT, J.:-The petitioners are a partnership firm. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for cancellation/withdrawal of the impugned bills dated 1st February, 1983 and 1st April, 1983 (Exhs. A and D to the petition respectively) and impugned letters/orders dated 10-9-1984, 7-1-1985, 23-5-1985 and 24-6-1985. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the respondents for reconnection of telephone bearing No. 361663 installed at their Bombay office at 29/33, 3rd Bhoiwada, Bhuleshwar, Bombay - 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that prior to December, 1980 the petitioners were carrying on their business in Bombay at Manbai Velji building, 145/B, Dr. Viegas Street, Gaiwadai, Bombay - 400 002 and were having telephone No. 311850. Since the said office premises was in a dilapidated condition and required extensive repairs the petitioners closed down the said office and shifted their business to 29/33, 3rd Bhoiwada, Bhuleshwar, Bombay - 2. It is the case of the petitioners that due to the aforesaid fact the petitioners telephone No. 311850 was not in use since November, 1980. The petitioners also relied upon the bills received by them for the period between October, 1980 and November, 1982 to show the non-use of the said telephone. Surprisingly, on 8th February, 1983 the petitioners received a bill dated 1st February, 1982 for an amount of Rs. 18,818/- for the period from 14-11-1982 to 14-1-1983 in respect of their telephone No. 311850. Since, as mentioned earlier, the said telephone was not in use the petitioners wrote letters dated 8th February, 1983 and lodged a complaint. They also requested the respondents in their said letter to take the said telephone in their custody. To this, the respondents called upon the petitioners to pay Rs. 160/-. The petitioners further contend that in spite of the aforesaid letter, the respondents failed to take their telephone in custody for more than 3 months. Surprisingly on 4th May, 1983 the petitioners received a bill dated 1-4-1983 for an amount of Rs. 41,262.50 for the period from 14-1-1983 to 14-3-1983 in respect of the said telephone. Against this bill, the petitioners immediately lodged their protest vide their letter dated 4-5-1983. They once again requested the respondents to keep the telephone in their safe custody. On 5-5-1983 the respondents took the said telephone in their custody and issued a receipt dated 5-5-1983 to that effect. Against this bill, the petitioners immediately lodged their protest vide their letter dated 4-5-1983. They once again requested the respondents to keep the telephone in their safe custody. On 5-5-1983 the respondents took the said telephone in their custody and issued a receipt dated 5-5-1983 to that effect. As regards the bill dated 1-4-1983 for Rs. 41,262.50 the sum was split by the respondents whereby the petitioners paid an amount of Rs. 170/- and the balance amount of Rs. 41,092.50 was kept in abeyance pending investigation by the Divisional Engineer. 2. On 29th August, 1983 the petitioners received from the respondents letter dated 17-8-1983 wherein a break-up of the meter reading in respect of the said telephone for the period from 14-11-1982 to 14-3-1983 was given. In the said letter the respondents further informed the present petitioners that the reading in the telephone meter in respect of the said telephone was properly recorded and no rebate could be given on that count. Against the said decision, the petitioners preferred appeal to the Additional General Manager, Bombay Telephones. During the pendency of the said appeal the petitioners received letter dated 27-5-1983 from the Accounts Officer, Bombay Telephones in a standard cyclostyled form whereby the petitioners were called upon to make payment in respect of the said bills dated 2-2-1983 and 2-4-1983 on or before 3-9-1983. In the said communication it was pointed out by the respondents to the present petitioners that if they failed to make the aforesaid payment the said telephone would be disconnected. Along with the said letter the respondents enclosed two revised bills dated 2nd February, 1983 and 2nd April, 1983 for amounts of Rs. 19,658/- and Rs. 41 092.50 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioners vide letter dated 14-9-1983 addressed to the Additional General Manager requested for an opportunity to present their case before him but the Additional General Manager failed to do so. On 10th September, 1984 the petitioners received communication from Accounts Officer wherein the petitioners were informed that Additional General Manager had gone through all relevant papers and further recorded that nothing could be done in the matter as the petitioners had no case. On 10th September, 1984 the petitioners received communication from Accounts Officer wherein the petitioners were informed that Additional General Manager had gone through all relevant papers and further recorded that nothing could be done in the matter as the petitioners had no case. Thereafter, on 7-1-1985 the petitioners received circular communication from the respondents calling upon them to make payment in respect of the two bills referred to above, failing which the respondents threatened to disconnect the telephone bearing No. 361663 which was at the petitioners Bhuleshwar office as also their telephone No. 26694 at the Surat office. The petitioners therefore addressed letter dated 25-2-1985 to the Honble Minister, Department of Communications, Government of India, New Delhi for considering their case but received no reply. Thereafter in the second week of April, 1985, the petitioners found that their telephone at Bhuleshwar office No. 361663 had gone dead. The petitioners made a complaint to which they received a reply from the respondents dated 23-5-1985 calling upon them to clear the earlier two bills for Rs. 19,658/- and Rs. 41,092.50 respectively. In the said communication the respondents threatened to disconnect the petitioners telephone at Surat which they in fact did on 8-4-1985. Against this background the petitioners here have preferred the present writ petition claiming various reliefs as mentioned aforesaid. 3. Mr. Naik. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the present petitioners, contended that the petitioners are relying upon the telephone bills from 1975 onwards to show their normal reading (Exh. L at page 39 to this petition). In the aforesaid exhibit particulars of bills covering for the period from 1-10-1975 to 10-5-1985 are given. It appears that in respect of the period from October, 1980 to May 1985 except for the two bills dated 1-12-1982 and 1-4-1983 the bills are very nominal and in almost all the cases after 1982 onwards the bills are only to the extent of Rs. 160/-. Suddenly there is a spurt for the period from 14-11-1982 to 14-1-1982 to the tune of Rs. 18,818/- and this is reflected in the bill of 1-2-1983 and to the extent of Rs. 41,262.50 for the period from 14-1-1983 to 14-3-1983 as reflected in the bill dated 1-4-1983. Prior and subsequent to these two periods the bills are only for rental charges. 4. Mr. 18,818/- and this is reflected in the bill of 1-2-1983 and to the extent of Rs. 41,262.50 for the period from 14-1-1983 to 14-3-1983 as reflected in the bill dated 1-4-1983. Prior and subsequent to these two periods the bills are only for rental charges. 4. Mr. Naik referring to the said spurt in the bills contended that the petitioners have submitted on oath that from November, 1980 onwards they have shifted their office where the said telephone was kept and as such there is no question of any calls being made. The fact that since shifting of the office except for the said impugned two bills every time they received bills to the extent of only rental charges itself fortifies the above contention of the present petitioners. It is further contended on behalf of the present petitioners that the sudden spurt might be either due to a fault in the metering circuit or due to mischief by other subscribers in league with the staff of the telephone department. According to Mr. Naik the onus to show that the impugned bills are correct soley rests on the telephone department particularly having regard to the fact that the petitioners shifted their office in November, 1980 and the said telephone was not in use. The respondents, it is contended, have not discharged this burden. 5. Mr. Naik, in this connection, relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Gauhati High Court in (Santokh Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Shillong)1, A.I.R. 1990 Gauhati 47. In the aforesaid judgment Gauhati High Court extensively considered the problem of excess billing as also its causes and the remedy available to a subscriber who is a victim of excess billing. In the aforesaid judgment the Gauhati High Court referred to various provisions of Post Telegraphs Manual, the circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications and observed: "From a reading of the aforesaid provisions contained in the Manual and the circular it is clear that the Government is aware of the serious problem of excess billing as also of its causes. It also knows that even if no defect is found in the meter, possibility of false metering cannot be ruled out. It also knows that even if no defect is found in the meter, possibility of false metering cannot be ruled out. In technical terms, it is conscious that there may be false metering "due to landing of the subscriber on an engaged switch train up to the point of outgoing carrier channel relay set on which STD call is in progress". It is aware that in some cases on account of some short circuit in the line or due to faulty operation of the hook switch the subscribers line after making a STD call might be held up and all this may result in the meters recording local calls enormously in excess of the normal calling rate for local subscribers. It is also the admitted position that excess biling may occur on account of deliberate mischief by some other subscribers in league with the staff of the telephone department." Relying upon the aforesaid observations Mr. Naik contended that in the present case also the respondents have not ruled out the possibility of false metering even if no defect was found in the meter and other causes of excess billing. 6. On the other hand Miss. Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the present respondents, contended that meter readings in respect of the said telephone were checked and found to be correct. It may be that the said telephone was not used by the petitioners but somebody having access might have used the telephone. It was further argued that when the petitioners shifted their office in November, 1980 they should have taken immediate steps to hand over the said telephone to the custody of the respondents and for their carelessness or negligence to do so, the respondents should not be held liable. Miss Shah also relied upon the affidavit filed by one P. Ramnathan, Divisional Engineer. In the aforesaid affidavit it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the complaints in respect of the impugned bills were investigated both internally and externally and it was found that there was no error in both the bills. Respondents also relied upon the internal report and external report which are annexed as Exhs. 1 and 2 to the affidavit in reply. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We have also gone through the said internal and external reports relied upon by the respondents. In the internal report (Exh. Respondents also relied upon the internal report and external report which are annexed as Exhs. 1 and 2 to the affidavit in reply. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We have also gone through the said internal and external reports relied upon by the respondents. In the internal report (Exh. 1 to the affidavit in reply) against columns No. 6, 7 and 8(i) no information is provided. Against column No. 8(ii) it is inter alia mentioned "Checked O.K.". Against column No. 10 also nothing is mentioned. This column relates to "Result of STD test (If barred)". In short the only contention on behalf of the respondents is that the meter is correctly recording the readings. 8. In the present case, according to our opinion, the rejection of the complaint as regards excess billing has been done in a perfunctory manner and no attempt has been made to rule out the possibility of other causes of excess billing such as fault in the metering circuit or some transient fault in the system etc. We may, in this connection, conveniently refer to the following observations of the Gauhati High Court in the aforesaid case : "....... it is the telephone department alone who has got the full control over the entire operation of the telephone system including the lines, metering circuits, instruments, operation of the hook switch or functioning of its employees and the like. If any one of these causes exist or if a deliberate mischief has been committed by the staff of the department, we find it difficult to visualise the ways and means by which a subscriber can establish the same. There is no denial that such causes do exist. It is also admitted that by any amount of field investigation possibility of such causes or mischief cannot be ruled out. It is because of this that the Government of India, Ministry of Communication itself has decided that no field investigation is called for to determine whether there was any cause for special spurt after the complaint has been received. This according to them, should have been made, if justified, immediately after the spurt was noticed in the "fortnightly readings". It has been rightly pointed out to all the Telecommunication Circles that no useful purpose would be served by undertaking such field investigations after an excess billing complaint has been received. This according to them, should have been made, if justified, immediately after the spurt was noticed in the "fortnightly readings". It has been rightly pointed out to all the Telecommunication Circles that no useful purpose would be served by undertaking such field investigations after an excess billing complaint has been received. We appreciate the sincerity, clarity and frankness with which the Ministry has accepted the real state of affairs. It cannot, therefore, be said that the authorities after receipt of the complaint by field investigation can detect that the spurt was justified unless they can find any just reason to satisfy that STD facility, in fact, was used by the subscriber. This can be done either by regular observation based on fornightly meter reading which they are required to do as a part of their duty or by pointing out to some material which can convince a reasonable person about the possibility of such spurt taking place as a result thereof. Otherwise, the benefit shall have to be given to the subscriber as admittedly there is no means by which he can establish his bona fides except making averment to that effect". 9. In view of the above discussion, we quash the impugned bills dated 1-2-1983 and 1-4-1983. Further, the split bills given by the respondents in respect of the impugned bills are treated as final and there is no question of any further investigation as any such investigation is redundant in view of the above discussion. 10. We may further point out that the decision of the Gauhati High Court relied upon by the petitioners and the observations on the point of excess billing were challenged by the telephone department before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 447 of 1990. The Supreme Court by its order dated 22-7-1991 has granted special leave only on the question of scope of Rule 443 with which we are not concerned in the present case. We may also add that the aforesaid decision of the Gauhati High Court is also followed by our High Court in (Madhav Vinayak Rajwade v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.)2, 1994 Mah. L.J. 264 : 1994(2) Bom.C.R. 687 . This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs. Certified copy expedited. Writ petition allowed. *****