Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) AN order passed on 22. 12. 1993 by Shri J. K. Pali,senior Sub Judge, Delhi is under challenge by the petitioner in this petition filedunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India by which a direction was made in apetition preferred by the respondent against the petitioner to restore the Public Calloffice Telephone No. 3278942 installed at 751, Sui Walan, Darya Ganj, Delhi. In thealternative, a prayer is made that revisional power under Section 115 of the Codeof Civil Procedure be exercised for questioning the impugned order. ( 2 ) THE Public Call facility through telephone No. 3278942 was available at theaforementioned premises where the respondent has been doing the practice inmedicines for the last more than 30 years. It has been the case of the respondent thathe had been operating as a PCO Agent of the petitioner under an agreement and thefacility of PCO is available at the premises for the last about two decades. On25. 1. 1993 a show cause notice was issued by the petitioner to the respondentalleging that PCO Telephone was being misused which act was in contravention ofindian Telegraph Rules, 1951 (for short the Rules ). Reply to show cause notice wassubmitted on 5. 2. 1993 by the respondent denying the allegations. According to therespondent he did not receive any communication thereafter from the petitionerdespite the fact that on 1. 3. 1993 a letter was also addressed by the respondent to thegeneral Manager requesting him to look into the matter personally and to withdraw the notice. On 3. 5. 1993 another reminder was sent by the respondent to thepetitioner for withdrawal of show cause notice. It was further alleged that on18. 5. 1993 respondent received another notice dated 17. 5. 1993 from the petitionercalling upon the respondent to fill up a new proforma, being a revised agreementwithin two weeks failing which it was stated that the PCO Facility was likely to bewithdrawn. Respondent feeling aggrieved against the threatened action, ascontemplated in the letter dated 17. 5. 5. 1993 respondent received another notice dated 17. 5. 1993 from the petitionercalling upon the respondent to fill up a new proforma, being a revised agreementwithin two weeks failing which it was stated that the PCO Facility was likely to bewithdrawn. Respondent feeling aggrieved against the threatened action, ascontemplated in the letter dated 17. 5. 1993 took up the matter to the Court by filinga petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act read with Section 7-B of the Indiantelegraph Act, 1885 raising a dispute that the petitioner had no right to revise theterms and conditions of the previous agreement and prayed that in terms of Section7-B of the Act the question raised by him deserves to be referred to an Arbitrator. ( 3 ) PETITIONER put in appearance in the aforementioned proceedings and filedits reply in which a preliminary objection was raised that in response to noticedated 25. 1. 1993 PCO actually stood disconnected on 1. 3. 1993, after giving duenotice under Rule 421 of the Rules. It was through a genuine bonafide mistake thatin routine letter dated 17. 5. 1993 was issued to the respondent. Since PCO telephonealready stood disconnected, there was no question of the respondent having anyright to approach the Court in seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator. Therespondent, in view of the petitioner s version, as contained in its reply applied tothe Court for an interim relief stating that for the first time on the basis of theaverments made in the reply of the petitioner that he has come to know that PCOtelephone has been disconnected on 1. 3. 1993. He was not made aware of this factearlier and moreover disconnection under Rule 421 was bad in law since Rule 421was not applicable, which is applicable only in the case of a subscriber of atelephone. He was not a subscriber of a telephone but was an agent under anagreement. According to him, paras 4 A and 5 as contained in petitioner snotification No. 2-7/71 PHA dated 23. 3. 1971 would apply and since there was nocompliance, therefore, order being bad, interim order deserves to be issued forrestoration of the PCO facility till decision. He was not a subscriber of a telephone but was an agent under anagreement. According to him, paras 4 A and 5 as contained in petitioner snotification No. 2-7/71 PHA dated 23. 3. 1971 would apply and since there was nocompliance, therefore, order being bad, interim order deserves to be issued forrestoration of the PCO facility till decision. ( 4 ) THROUGH the impugned order Senior Sub Judge, Delhi came to the conclusion that there were serious questions to be gone into, due to which there was a verygood prim a fade case made out by the respondent and the balance of conveniencealso lay in favour of grant of relief to the respondent during pendency of theproceedings. Moreover, the PCO facility was not meant for the respondentpersonally but was meant for the public at large. Depriving the public at largewould cause irreparable loss. He ordered restoration of PCO Facility duringpendency of the proceedings. It is this order which is under challenge. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through therecord. ( 6 ) RULE421 of the Rules deals with disconnection of a telephone and authorisesthe Divisional Engineer, on being satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, to orderdisconnection of a telephone of a subscriber. In so far as PCO is concerned there isno question of there being any subscriber, which will be evident in case referenceis made to the definition of a Public Call Office, contained in clause (nn) of Rule 2of the Rules which defines a PCO to mean a telephone office for the use of generalpublic, during specified hours on payment of prescribed fees. It is not disputed thatfacility at the premises in question is on the basis of an agreement. Rule 421 reads:"421. Disconnection of telephones-Where the Divisional Engineer is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is necessary to do so, he may,after giving the subscriber a notice in writing for a period which shall notexcept in emergent cases be less than seven days, disconnect the telephone,and in such case, the subscriber shall be entitled to refund of rent for theunexpired portion of the period for which the connection or service wasgiven"a bare reading of the rule would show that it applies for disconnection of atelephone of a subcriber. This rule is not applicable and cannot be made use of bythe authorities for disconnecting a PCO facility for which rights of the parties willbe governed under the terms of the agreement. Once a telephone facility for generalpublic through a PCO is available at a particular place, different conditions wouldprevail and not the one as are contained in Rule 421. For the purpose of decisionof the application for interim relief, in the impugned order. Senior Subordinatejudge rightly considered the three well known principles, namely, the existence ofa prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. He rightly came tothe conclusion that since facility through PCO is available to the general public,deprivation of that facility during pendency of the proceedings would be nothingbut unnecessary inconvenience to the public at large. It is not disputed that PCOFacility was withdrawn by not invoking the terms of agreement but only Rule 421was invoked, which on the face of it is not applicable. The parties rights on thedisputed questions raised will have to be decided on merits in the main proceedings where the question is as to whether the disputes which have arisen are or arenot referrable for arbitration. I do not consider it to be a fit case for interference withan interlocutory order at this stage. There is no jurisdictional error in so far. as theimpugned order is concerned by virtue of which Senior Sub Judge has allowed theapplication of the respondent in the terms, stated in the order. Petition accordinglyis dismissed. Record be sent back forthwith. Parties to appear before the Courtconcerned on 24. 2. 1995.