JUDGMENT 1. Defensibility of the action of the respondent No, 2, District Engineer, Office of Telecommunication, Bilaspur, who has directed the disconnection of the telephone No. BIL 28756 of the petitioner for default of payment by her mother Smt. Sobha Dwivedi, subscriber of telephone No, 24938, is called in question in the present writ petition. 2. The essential facts are that the petitioner, a resident of Shanti Kunj Vidya Nagar, Bilaspur, is subscriber of telephone No. BIL 28756, His mother is the subscriber of telephone No. 24938 installed at Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur. It is admited in the writ petition that the mother of the petitioner was in default of payment of telephone bill in respect of her telephone. A notice in that regard was issued by the Tele-communication Department to her. As far as the petitioner is concerned dues in respect of his telephone has been paid regularly. It is also asserted by the petitioner that he is living separately from his mother and he is an independent subscriber of his telephone. It is also put forth in the writ petition that the telephone of the petitioner has been disconnected on 4.2,98 by the respondent without giving notice in that regard, An application was filed on 6.2.98 for reconnection of the telephone but the same was not accepted, It is averred in the writ petition that action of the authorities is violative of the provisions of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules framed there under. With the aforesaid averments a prayer has been made for issuance of direction to the respondent for reconnection of the telephone of the petitioner. 3. A return has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that both the telephones are installed in the same premises and both the subscribers are closely related. It is admitted that telephone No, 24938 is in the name of the mother of the petitioner whereas the telephone No. 28756 is the name of the petitioner, her son. It is alleged that the petitioner got the telephone No. 24938 in name of his mother and shifted it to one of his friends house and he is operating it as a STD/PCO Booth. However it is accepted that the permission for normal shifting telephone has been obtained. It is alleged that the petitioner got the telephone No. 24938 in name of his mother and shifted it to one of his friends house and he is operating it as a STD/PCO Booth. However it is accepted that the permission for normal shifting telephone has been obtained. It is further stated that as the telephone bills in respect of telephone No. 24938 amounting Rs. 91846/- was not paic the telephone No. 24938 was disconnected under rule 443 of the Telephone Rules. As the petitioner was involved in the activity relating to the said telephone with the permission of his mother the telephone No. 28756 belonging to the petitioner has also been disconnected. Averring of these aspects action taken by the respondents are being sought to be justified. It is also pleaded that both the telephones are situate in one and single address and, therefore, the action taken by the respondent No.3 cannot be regarded as arbitrary or contrary to law. 4. Assailing the aforesaid action of the telephone department Mr. Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner being a separate subscriber of the telephone no. 28756, his telephone cannot be disconnected as he had not committed any default as a subscriber. He has referred to Rule 443 of the Telephone Rules. His further submission is that before disconnection of the telephone the petitioner was not given any notice for such disconnection, and hence whole action of the respondent no. 2 is vitiated being violative of principle of natural justice. 5. Mr. Namdeo, learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, has contended that as the petitioner was staying with his mother and they defrauded to the department it is justified on the part of the authorites to take such drastic action and the petitioner is not entitled to may notice as he had full knowledge of the same. 6. To appreciate rival submissions raised at the Bar it is essential to refer Rule 443 which reads as under: "Rule 443. 6. To appreciate rival submissions raised at the Bar it is essential to refer Rule 443 which reads as under: "Rule 443. Detault of Payment.-- If, on or before the due date, the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone service provided are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with these rules, or bills for charges in respect of calls (local and trunk) or phonograms or other dues from the subscriber are-not duly paid by him, any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him may be disconnected without notice. The telephone or telephones or the telex so disconnected may, if the telegraph Authority think fit, be restored, if the defaulting subscriber pays the outstanding dues and the reconnection fee together with the rental for such portion of the intervening period (during which the telephone or telex remains disconnected) as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority from time to time. The subscriber shall pay all the above charges within such period as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority from time to time." On a plain and fair reading of the aforesaid rule it is quite clear that the due rent are to be paid by the subscriber in accordance with these rules and if the same are not made good by the subscriber any telephone rented by him may be disconnected without notice. In this context I may refer to rules 420 and 421 of the Rules. Rule 420 deals with the default of subscriber and Rule 421 deals with disconnection of the telephone. They read as under: "Rule 420. Default of Subscribers due to insolvency, etc. -- When a subscriber is adjudged an insolvent or makes or enters into any composition or arrangement with his creditors or suffers execution to be levied upon his premises, or commits any breach of or fails to observe and comply with any of these rules, the Telegraph Authority may close the connection by giving to the subscriber notice in writing for a period of seven days." "Rule 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. 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 not except in emergent cases be less than 7 days, disconnect the telephone, and in such case, the subscriber shall be entitled to refund of rent for the unexpired portion of the period for which the connection or service was given." The question that really falls for determination that whether the petitioner can be treated as subcriber in respect of both the telephones. There is no iota of doubt that Rule 443 authorises to the department to disconnect the telephone without notice on default of payment of dues. This Court in the case of Chand Datta v. Union of India and another, 1997 (1) JLJ 312 = 1997 (2) MPLJ 523 while interpreting Rule 443 has held thus: "In view of the plain reading in the aforesaid decision, it as clear that Rule 443 speaks of subscriber who is a person, who has been provided the telephone service and for the purposes of taking action under Rule 443 the power cannot be exercised to disconnect the telephone of a relation having independent telephone in default of such subscriber. Therefore, for the default in payment of telephone bills of telephone of petitioner's husband, the disconnection of the telephone service provided to the petitioner is not permissible, hence the action of disconnection of the petitioner's telephone is illegal and cannot be sustained." Similar view has been taken by the High Court of Orissa in the case of Kailash Prasad Modi v. Chief General Manager, Orissa Telecommunication and others, AIR 1994 Orissa 98, wherein a Division Bench of the said High Court has held while dealing with a case of the petitioner who was a son of the erstwhile Director in a Company having no relationship with the Company on the date of disconnection of the telephone he would not be liable on account of default in respect of Company's telephone and the disconnection of his personal telephone was not proper. In M/s. Mahalakshmi Legal and Tax Consultancy v. Assistant General Manager, (OSD), Telecom, Vijayawada and another, 1995 (5) AIHC 4866. In M/s. Mahalakshmi Legal and Tax Consultancy v. Assistant General Manager, (OSD), Telecom, Vijayawada and another, 1995 (5) AIHC 4866. the Andhra Pradesh High Court considering almost in a similar situation observed that rule does not empower to disconnect the telephone of one person for the default of another person regardless of relationship of the said two persons. In that case the default was committed by the wife of one of the partners of the firm but the telephone belonging to the firm was disconnected and the Court did not accept contention of the department and directed for restoration of the telephone connection. It is relevant to state here that the view taken in the aforesaid case was based on the principles enunciated in the case of Y. Prithivi Kumar v. General Manager, Telecom, District Hyderabad, AIR 1993 AP 131 . Similar view has also been expressed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. B. V. Manek v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., AIR 1996 Bombay 53. 7. In view of the aforesaid authorities pronouncements there is no iota of doubt that the disconnection of the petitioner's telephone in regard to the default in respect of the telephone committed by the mother who is the subscriber of the telephone connection, is illegal. 8. Mr. Namdeo, Learned counsel for the respondents, has referred to two unrepored judgments of Madras High Court which have been discussed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Mahalakshmi Legal and Tax consultancy 's case (supra). On a perusal of the aforesaid judgments I find that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh distinguished both the judgments rendered in unreported cases and I respectfully agree with the analysis made by the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh Hight Court. Mr. Namdeo has also referred the decision rendered in the case of Indu Agrmval. Jabalpur v. Director Telecoms. Jabalpur Circle. Jabalpur and another. 1990JLJ 638 = 1990 (XXXV) MPLJ 813 wherein this Court has interpreted Rules 421 and 443 of the Rules and has observed that if there is a default of Rule 443 the authority can disconnect the entire telephone service rented by the subscriber. Jabalpur v. Director Telecoms. Jabalpur Circle. Jabalpur and another. 1990JLJ 638 = 1990 (XXXV) MPLJ 813 wherein this Court has interpreted Rules 421 and 443 of the Rules and has observed that if there is a default of Rule 443 the authority can disconnect the entire telephone service rented by the subscriber. To illustrate, if a particular subscriber has availed connection in respect of more than one telephone or telex and he becomes defaulter in respect of one telephone the department is entitled under the law to disconnect all the lines which have been availed by the sole subscriber. Thus the key word is the 'subscriber'. But in the case at hand as has been fairly admitted by the Department that the petitioner is subscriber in respect of one telephone and the mother is of another telephone. The petitioner has an independent status and any relationship would not cause an impediment in his legal status. If the mother has become a defaulter in respect of telephone subscribed the telephone of a son, an independent subscriber, cannot be disconnected. Relationship cannot override the rights of a subscriber and one would be liable only for one's action. 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis the action taken by the respondents is indefensible and the same does not deserve the approval of this Court. It is accordingly directed that the respondents shall restore the telephone of the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. 10. The writ petition is allowed without any order as to costs.