Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. In this application the only question to be considered is as to whether telephone connection of a consumer can be disconnected for the reason that a criminal case is pending against him. 2. Brief facts which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner is having two telephone connections in his residence being telephone Nos. 407478 and 408478. He has another office telephone bearing No. 407082. As the telephone No. 407478 was out of order for some days, he lodged a complaint but the same was not attended to by the telephone department. On 1.9.1997 the petitioner met the Asstt. Engineer and the mechanic of the department who were making some repair works near his residence. The petitioner " requested them to attend his call and get the telephone No. 407478 repaired. Instead of attending the said telephone, it is asserted, the people of the department started abusing him and on protest the petitioner was assaulted and from his person Rs. 250.00 along with a watch, a pen and a pocket diary were snatched away. FIR was lodged in this connection giving rise to institution of Adityapur PS case No. 167/97 under Secs. 397, 323/34 of the Penal Code. Further case is that as a counter blast to the F.I.R. filed by the petitioner, the telephone mechanic, Mathura Yadav also lodged a complaint before his higher authority alleging manhandling by the petitioner on 1.9.1997. The said complaint was forwarded to the Adityapur police and Adityapur PS case No. 168/97 under Secs. 323, 341 and 353 of the Penal Code was registered. Both the first information reports have been annexed as Annexures land 2. 3. On surrender the petitioner was granted bail by the Magistrate and having come to know that the petitioner was granted bail, Mathura Yadav, at the instance of others approached the Mazdoor Union as a result thereof the said Union gave a call for strike on the demand of arrest of the petitioner as well as disconnection of his telephone lines. Further assertion is that on the pressure of the Union and O.P Khare and B.D Singh against whom the petitioner had lodged F.I.R., the Divisional Engineer, Telephone (External) Jamshedpur, West, respondent No. 2 issued show cause notice to the petitioner to explain within five days of the receipt of the notice as to why his telephone lines, namely, telephone Nos. 407478. 407478. 408478 and 409478 be not disconnected. The said notice is dated 4.9.1997 which was received by the petitioner on 9.9.1997. Annexure-3 is the show cause notice. The petitioner sent his reply on 12.9.1997 through registered post explaining the entire circumstances and the occurrence which took place on 1.9.1997. Further assertion is that before reply of the petitioner could reach the authority concerned, the aforesaid telephone connections were disconnected on 12.9.1997 itself. It is asserted that being an executive member of the political party the petitioner and others had lodged a complaint before the Chief General Manager against O.P. Khare, Asstt. Engineer, J.O.T. R.D. Singh and Mathura Yadav alleging bungling committed by them and sought for an enquiry. Those three persons being antoganised wanted to teach a lesson to the petitioner. Under this circumstance a prayer has been made to restore the telephone connection of the aforesaid three telephone numbers. 4. By filing counter affidavit respondent No. 2 has taken a stand that by obstructing a Government servant from doing his official duty, the petitioner has committed an offence under Sec. 23(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act. Due to call of strike by the Union and suspension of the service by the department personnel, the authority concerned was compelled to take further step but in order to do justice the petitioner was given time for five days and waited for seven days for show cause but because no reply was received from the petitioner, telephone connections were disconnected. It is asserted that disconnection has been done not only in exercise of powers under Sec. 421 but under Rule 416-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules read with Rule 427., Referring to the police report dated 2.9.1997 as contained in Annexure C and C/1 it is asserted that the allegations made by the petitioner in his F.I.R. have been falsified by the said report in which it is stated that no incident had taken place. The police further reported that the S.D.O. Singhbhum west drew up a proceeding under Sec. 107 Cr.P.C. mentioning that the petitioner is the Pangdar of the locality. 5. In the aforesaid background learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that whatever may be the background there is no provision either under the Indian Telegraph Act or the Rules to disconnect the telephone connection of the petitioner on the ground that F.I.R. had been lodged against him. 6. 5. In the aforesaid background learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that whatever may be the background there is no provision either under the Indian Telegraph Act or the Rules to disconnect the telephone connection of the petitioner on the ground that F.I.R. had been lodged against him. 6. On the other hand Mr. Trivedi has contended with reference to Rules 416 and 416-A and other various Rules, that under the aforesaid circumstance, the telephone line can be disconnected by the department. 7. Before adverting to other contentions raised on behalf of the parties, the notice issued by the department to the petitioner may be looked into. This notice is contained in Annexure-3 which is dated 4.9.1997. It, inter alia, alleges that the petitioner has not availed the procedure for lodging the complaint by reporting the complaints to Exchange Complaints Position-198 and to the J.T.O. of Adityapur Exchange. He also did not report about the fault in his telephone to the D.E. Phones External. Even if he was not satisfied the petitioner could have reported to the T.D.M. with this accusation the petitioner was asked to show cause by stating as under: Under these circumstances why not the our Telephones 407478, 408478, 409478 should not be disconnected. The reply in this regard may kindly be given within 5 days from the receipt of this letter, otherwise experts dicision will be taken. This notice was sent by D.E., Phone (External), Jamshedpur West which was received by the petitioner on 9.9.1997 which is apparent from the nothing on the notice itself. 8 Rule 421(1) of Indian Telegraph Rules contemplates as follows: 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 cases, the subscriber shall be entitled to refund of rent for the unexpired portion of the period for which the connection or service was given. From the perusal of the aforesaid provision it is clear that atleast 7 days time must be given to the subscriber for giving reply to the notice. However, there is an exception to the effect that except in emergent cases 7 days period must be given. From the perusal of the aforesaid provision it is clear that atleast 7 days time must be given to the subscriber for giving reply to the notice. However, there is an exception to the effect that except in emergent cases 7 days period must be given. Therefore, in my view, the notice to show cause within five days from the receipt of the letter was against the provision of law because notice does not show that because of any emergent case instead of 7 days five days was given to the petitioner to show cause. The fact that the petitioner received the said notice on 9.9,1997 has not been controverted by respondent No. 2. In para 17 of the counter affidavit it is admitted that the petitioner was given five days time to explain but the petitioner did not object to the same nor requested for its extension within the prescribed time. The deponent has also admitted that the telephone lines were disconnected on 12.9.1997. Under this circumstance, this writ petition can be allowed merely on the ground that before taking drastic step for disconnecting the telephone lines, the principles of natural justice were not observed by the department. 9. Reliance on Rules 416, 416-A, 422 and 417 of the Indian Telegraph Rules by Mr. Trivedi, in my view, is misconceived. Rule 416 deals with the powers of telephone authority in rejecting the application for connection of a new telephone or for providing any similar service or for alteration of any existing service. Rule 416-A says about the special powers of Telephone Authority in refusing to grant any telephone connection. Under Rule 422, the Division Engineer, in the event of any emergency, may disconnect any subscriber with or without any notice. It further contemplates that in case such disconnection exists for a period of 7 days, the subscriber shall be entitled to proportionate refund of rent. Rule 427 discusses about the personal responsibility of a subscriber for the use of his telephone. This Rule says that no telephone shall be used to disturb or irritate any person or for the transmission of any message or communication which is of indecent or obscene nature or is calculated to annoy any person or to disrupt the maintenance of public order or in any other manner contrary to any provision of law. 10. This Rule says that no telephone shall be used to disturb or irritate any person or for the transmission of any message or communication which is of indecent or obscene nature or is calculated to annoy any person or to disrupt the maintenance of public order or in any other manner contrary to any provision of law. 10. On the other hand, Sec. 23 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with is also a penal provision, may be looked into. According to Sec. 23(d), if any person wilfully obstructs or impedes any such officer or servant in the performance of his duty, he shall be punished with fine which may extend to fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. 11. On the aforesaid premises even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the petitioner obstructed some officers and servants of the Telegraph, Department in performance of their duties by abusing and manhandling, for which the department has already filed F.I.R. but his telephone line could not have been disconnected. Mere obstruction by a person clearly falls within the provision as laid down to Sec. 23(d) of the Act. Thus, the argument of Mr. Trivedi that even where a criminal case is pending against a subscriber for committing some criminal act against an employee of the department the telephone line could be disconnected, in my view, is not sustainable. 12. The scope and ambit of Rule 421 of the Indian Telegraph Rules has been dealt with in extenso by a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of reported in -- wherein it has been held thus: The Rule simply refers to disconnection on giving a notice to the subscriber in writing and the prerequisite is satisfaction of the Divisional Engineer that it is necessary to disconnect the telephone and that satisfaction should be recorded in writing. We have to remember that the State has a monopoly in the operation of the telephone system and there is no option left to any person to have the facility of telephone except through the telephone department of the Government. We have also to remember that in modern times possession, of a telephone is a necessary requisite for any one engaged in any business or profession. It is not a luxury. Denial of telephone or disconnection of telephone to a man in business is necessarily bound to cause very evil consequence. We have also to remember that in modern times possession, of a telephone is a necessary requisite for any one engaged in any business or profession. It is not a luxury. Denial of telephone or disconnection of telephone to a man in business is necessarily bound to cause very evil consequence. In granting the telephone connection it is not as if the Government is extending a patronage. It is only performing its duty to extend facility which every one who complies with the rules is entitled to. We are making these observations only to underline the fact that telephone connection cannot be taken away at the sweet will and pleasure of the department. It is not even sufficient if the party is informed that it should be taken away. The authority may come to a satisfaction on report which may be by people who are, misinformed, on material not relevant or on an approach which may irrelevant. Whatever, tentative decision the authority in the Department may reach, there must be an occasion for the subscriber to know what he has to answer to know what is against him and to submit what he has by way of answer. There is equally a duty on the telephone department to consider such objection and take a decision in accordance with material available to it either by way of report or by way of information gathered by it. That decision has to be an objective decision. What are the tests of an objective decision, need not be stated here for the - Courts have time and again indicated the requisite of an objective approach assessment, and determination. All that would be required to take away telephone which is a facility, as indicated above, which a person is entitled to enjoy and denial whereof is bound to affect materially his business. Otherwise it would be an arbitrary and discriminatory Act. If the Telephone Department is permitted to apply its own standard in affecting disconnection or to make a subjective approach to the question the consequences may be disastrous. That cannot be permitted due regard being had to the constitutional rights of the citizens. Rule 421 no doubt speaks only of a notice. Every rule must be read and interpreted to the extent possible to render it reasonable and within constitutional limit. That cannot be permitted due regard being had to the constitutional rights of the citizens. Rule 421 no doubt speaks only of a notice. Every rule must be read and interpreted to the extent possible to render it reasonable and within constitutional limit. Therefore, when Rule 421 speaks of notice, it is not to be understood as an empty formality of a notice of disconnection but a notice indicating as to why and for what reason disconnection is intended. That will enable the subscriber on whom the notice is served to place facts before the concerned authority so that the decision to actually disconnect may be taken after due regard is paid to the materials available. The subscriber on being intimated of the reason may find that such reason is true as for instance, the reason of arrears and he may have nothing to present by way of objection. On the other hand, it may be a case where patently there is no error in the approach and the subscriber may be able to convince the authority on it, if given a chance. We read Rule 421 as needing such an approach and calling for such a construction. This view has been again reiterated by the Karnataka High Court in case of Morzaria Products Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore and Anr. V/s. Bangalore Telephones and Anr. . 13. Though Mr. Trivedi has relied on the decision in the case of Rang Rang and Anr. V/s. General Manager, Delhi Telephones and Ors. reported in -- , but, in my view Mr. Trivedi has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in the aforesaid decision and that of the present case. Before the Supreme Court disputed question was as to whether a subscriber made payment together with reconnection charges. Their lordships observed "the dispute is primarily a question of fact and the Court cannot satisfactorily decide the dispute." Thus it was observed that the appellants of that case were at liberty to make payment of the bill or file an application to the competent authority to adjudicate the dispute. 14. Their lordships observed "the dispute is primarily a question of fact and the Court cannot satisfactorily decide the dispute." Thus it was observed that the appellants of that case were at liberty to make payment of the bill or file an application to the competent authority to adjudicate the dispute. 14. In the present case as, observed earlier, the primary question is as to whether the telephone connection of a subscriber can be disconnected on the ground of pendency of a criminal case against him and secondly, whether the mandatory provisions as laid down under Rule 421 were followed by the department before taking this drastic step. So on both counts, as pointed out above, the department has utterly failed to satisfy the Court that this action in disconnecting the telephone line of the petitioner was fortified by the provisions of the Acts and the Rules. 15. In the result, this application is allowed. As Mr. Sunil Kumar has admitted that the telephone number 409478 and 487082 do not belong to the petitioner, no direction in respect of the said telephones is required to be passed. By ad-interim order dated 9.10.1997 directed respondent No. 2 to restore the connection of Telephone No. 407478 and 407082 and, as such, the only telephone line which is to be restored is telephone number 408478. Respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to restore the said telephone line within 48 hours from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that the period during which this telephone line (Telephone No. 408478) remained disconnected, no rent will be charged by the department from the petitioner.