Judgment 1. This writ petition is filed with the allegations that petitioner is a subscriber of telephone bearing No.MNG 775 installed at his residence at No.38, East, First St, Mannargudi, Thanjavur, District since February, 1987, It is alleged that the respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 29.9.1989 addressed to his father, received by the petitioner stating that the father has not paid the bill dated 1.9.1989 for Rs.19,489 in respect of telephone No.MNG 364, which was disconnected on 20.5.1989 for nonpayment of the said amount. If is further stated that if the above bill is not paid by 13.10.1989, the petitioners telephone bearing No.MNG 775 will be disconnected without further notice. It is also alleged that the telephone No.MNGH 775 is associated by telephone No.MNG 364. Hence, he filed this petition seeking to quash the communication dated 19.9.1989 and to forbear the respondents from disconnecting the petitioners telephone in pursuance of the communication dated 29.9.1989. 2. In the counter filed by the respondents it is stated that the father of the petitioner was asked to pay the due under telephone bill dated 1.9.1989 for Rs.19,489 comprising of rent of Rs.140 for two months from 1.10.1989 to 30.11.1989, local call charges for the period from 16.6.1989 to 15.8.1989 of Rs.19,343 and trunk call charges for the period from 16.6.1989 to 15.8.1989 of Rs.6. The petitioner neither replied, nor reported about the death of his father and he has also not paid the bill. It is also stated that the telephone in the name of the his father was in the same premises and the petitioner was using the same even after the death of the subscriber without any intimation. It is also stated that after the Department issued another letter, the impugned notice dated 29.9.1989, the petitioner replied on 5.10.1989 and in response thereto, the Department sent a registered letter with acknowledgement due to furnish some particulars as per law. But, no reply was sent and the bill was also not paid and therefore, the Department is entitled to disconnect the telephone of the petitioner for the non-payment of the dues of his fathers telephone, which was installed in the same premises. 3. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds mentioned in the writ petition and submitted that the Department cannot disconnect the telephone of the petitioner for the non-payment of the bill for the telephone of his father. 3. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds mentioned in the writ petition and submitted that the Department cannot disconnect the telephone of the petitioner for the non-payment of the bill for the telephone of his father. He relied on the decision in Y.Pridhvi Kumar v. Gen-eral Manager, Telecom District, Hyderabad Y.Pridhvi Kumar v. Gen-eral Manager, Telecom District, Hyderabad Y.Pridhvi Kumar v. Gen-eral Manager, Telecom District, Hyderabad, A.I.R. 1993 A.P. 13 wherein it was held that no liability can be fastened on the son for the non-payment of the bill of the mother who was an independent subscriber. He also relied on the decision in Santokh Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Shillong Santokh Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Shillong Santokh Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Shillong , A.I.R. 1980 Gau. 47. 4. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents submitted that despite notice, the petitioner never intimated regarding the death of his father, even though his father expired in 1988. It is also submitted that under Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, if there is default in paying the bills for the telephone charges, the telephone can be disconnected without notice. He has cited the decision in Zarina Begum v. The General Manager, Madras Telephones, W.M.P.No.11688 of 1986 in W.P.NO.8008 of 1986 and another order dated 5.11.1986, wherein the petitioner applied for a new telephone connection and the same was not given, as her husband got arrears. While dismissing the petition, it was held that till she settled the dues, there is no question of providing telephone connection in the name of the petitioner wife. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in K.Amanullah v. The Madras Telephones represented by the General Manger and another, W.P.No.13884 of 1986 order dated 12.2.1987 wherein the father failed to pay the arrears and set his son to apply independently and the son filed the writ petition for the restoration of the telephone and the writ petition was dismissed. However, it was observed that the right of the father to pay the arrears and got back connection will not be prejudiced. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. However, it was observed that the right of the father to pay the arrears and got back connection will not be prejudiced. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The question before me is, whether the telephone in the name of the petitioner son can be disconnected for non-payment of the dues in respect of the telephone, which stood in the name of his father, who expired, As per Rule 430 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, in the event of the death of a subscriber, the person claiming to be the successor, shall immediately give notice thereof and apply for permission to retain the connection or service. Under Rule 443, if there is any default in the payment of the dues, action can be taken to disconnect the telephone without notice. It is no doubt true that there is no Rule to disconnect the telephone connection for non-payment of the dues of the other nor Rule 443 can be interpreted in such a manner. But, in the instant case, as already stated, the petitioner son who was residing with his father without intimation used the telephone of his father after his death. Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot get any direction under the discretionary remedy. Mere so, the son has got a pious duty also to discharge the debt of his father. 6. The petitioner could not able to satisfy this Court that it was not his duty to intimate the death of his father. But, as per the records, he never intimated, rather was using the telephone of his father, which is nothing but misuse. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the cases cited above. From what I have discussed above, no interference is called for with the impugned notice. The writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.19997 of 1989 is dismissed.