JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J.:---Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 2.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is claiming the following reliefs against the respondent Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) (i) to issue a declaration that the disconnection of the petitioner's telephone connection bearing No. 6048212 is illegal, unconstitutional and void, (b) to issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the notice dated 5th August, 1996 issued by the respondent MTNL, (c) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent MTNL to withdraw the notice dated 5th August, 1996 and lastly (d) to direct the respondent MTNL not to demand or recover the alleged unpaid dues of the deceased husband of the petitioner. 3.Briefly the facts are that the petitioner is widow of one Siddharth Anand. The petitioner is the subscriber in her own name of a telephone connection allotted to her on 30th June, 1994 bearing telephone No. 6048212. The petitioner's late husband was a businessman and was carrying on business till March, 1992 from the premises situate at Khar and Shastri Nagar. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband suffered severe losses in business which resulted in complete closure of his business. He died in penury in New Delhi in November, 1994. It is further the case of the petitioner that she has not inherited any money or estate from her husband. The petitioner claims that she was not associated with the business of her husband in any manner. After her husband's death, the petitioner is working as a Teacher in a private school and is drawing a meagre salary of Rs. 600/- per month. She is living on the support of her relations and on casual tutions and therefore, her residential telephone connection in the circumstances is absolutely essential for her. 4.It appears that sometime in the second week of August, 1996 the petitioner received the impugned letter dated 5th August, 1996 from the respondent MTNL stating that it had come to the notice of the respondent that the subscriber of the disconnected telephone No. 6495691 was the petitioner's husband and requested the petitioner to persuade the subscriber of the said telephone to pay the outstanding amount within fifteen days. The letter further stated that in case no intimation was received from the petitioner within ten days her telephone connection No. 6048212 will be disconnected under Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. The petitioner replied to the said letter on 13th August, 1996 informing the respondent that the demand made by the department was time-barred and irrecoverable by due process of law. She also informed the department that she was not aware of the said telephone connection having been disconnected or any alleged dues being payable by her late husband in respect of the said telephone connection as alleged in the letter of 5th August, 1996. She also drew the attention of the respondent that the said Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 under which the respondent threatened disconnection of the petitioner's telephone permitted the respondent to disconnect only other telephone of the subscriber who is in default and not the telephones of relatives of the defaulting subscriber. She also informed the respondent that she had not inherited any movable or immovable property from her husband and, therefore, the question of her making any payment in respect of any dues allegedly payable by her late husband did not arise. It is the grievance of the petitioner that inspite of her reply, the petitioner's telephone was disconnected without any further notice or intimation. Aggrieved by the disconnection of the petitioner's telephone, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5.Mr. Mannadiar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously argued that under Rule 443, the department cannot disconnect the telephone of a relative of the defaulter. The Counsel urged that the disconnection of the petitioner's telephone which has been taken by her independently is certainly without jurisdiction. He urged that the petitioner has not inherited any property from her deceased husband and, in these circumstances, she cannot be made liable for the alleged dues of her late husband. Mr. Mannadiar urged that the action of the department is totally arbitrary and high-handed and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 6.I find considerable substance in the submissions of Mr. Mannadiar. Mr. Mannadiar urged that the action of the department is totally arbitrary and high-handed and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 6.I find considerable substance in the submissions of Mr. Mannadiar. It is well settled that the term 'subscriber' under Rule 443 means a person or firm who have subscribed and it would not include the relations, who have independent connections and whose phone the defaulter may be using and, therefore, MTNL cannot demand dues (or give threat of disconnection) to relations of defaulter. In (Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited v. Dr. B.V. Manek)1, 1996(2) Bom.C.R. 254 , the Division Bench held that Rule 443 at best will entitle the MTNL to disconnect one or more telephone connections in respect of a subscriber. It will not entitle it to disconnect telephone connection of one subscriber for the default of another subscriber. Ms. Shah, Counsel for the MTNL, however submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay the dues of her deceased husband and hence the notice issued by the department cannot be termed as illegal. It is true that as an heir the widow will be liable, but her liability is limited only to the extent of estate received by her by inheritance. It is the case of the petitioner that she has not inherited any estate. If that is so, the petitioner cannot be asked to pay the dues of her deceased husband. These aspects of the matter are not considered by the respondent at all. On the other hand, the telephone of the petitioner is disconnected without giving her any opportunity of hearing. In these circumstances, the petition is liable to be allowed. The department is directed to restore the telephone bearing No. 6048212 forthwith. It will be open for the respondent to issue a fresh notice and to take appropriate action in the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the light of observations made in this judgment. In the event of such notice being issued to the petitioner, the petitioner agrees to file reply within two weeks and co-operate in the enquiry. 7.Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 8.Respondents to act on the ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by Associate of this Court. Petition allowed. *****