S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this application has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw the demand of additional security deposit of Rs. 13,599/- in terms of annexure 'b' to the writ application and to review the same in terms of agreement dated 8th Febuary, 1993 as contained in annexure 'a' to the writ application. The petitioner applied for and was granted installation of a pay phone with STD and ISD facilities. For the aforementioned purpose, the parties entered into the aforementioned agreement dated 8th February, 1993, relevant clauses thereof read thus :-"7. The operating agency will pay a refundable non-interest bearing security deposit to cover six months' minimum guarantee amount initially to be adjusted to three months' average revenue for each payphone. This could be either in cash or as bank guarantee. The refund of the security deposit would be made when a payphone is closed after adjusting any pending charges due from the operating agency. The Department reserves the right to raise the security deposit after one month of the basis of actual meter readings recorded at the exchange in one month. 8. The operating agency will guarantee a minimum monthly revenue at the rate of Rs. 1,600/- for each STD payphone and Rs. 300/- for each local call Payphone. Any shortfall in the monthly revenue for a Payphone would have to be made good by the operating agency to the Department. " ( 2 ) THE petitioner contends that with effect from 24. 7. 93 the policy with regard to payment of security amount was reviewed. On 22nd May, 1994, the petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 9600/- towards security amount whereafter the said line was installed on 22nd July, 1994. The petitioner has contended that in between the period 22nd January, 1996 and 9th August, 1996, the bills which are contained in annexure 'c' to the writ application, were raised against the petitioner and the same have been paid. The petitioner has further allegedly deposited a sum of Rs. 439/- on 22nd August, 1996. Thereafter the impugned demand of additional security dated 24th June, 1996 was made. The petitioner's telephone connection was disconnected on 5th August, 1996 but according to the respondent, the said disconnection took place on 22nd August 1996. The petitioner has further allegedly deposited a sum of Rs. 439/- on 22nd August, 1996. Thereafter the impugned demand of additional security dated 24th June, 1996 was made. The petitioner's telephone connection was disconnected on 5th August, 1996 but according to the respondent, the said disconnection took place on 22nd August 1996. Upon receipt of the bill for payment of the additional security, the petitioner submitted a representation for reconnection of the said Payphone on 23. 9. 96 a copy whereof is contained in annexure 'b' to the writ application. The petitioner further made a representation on 14. 10. 66. Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of Union of India wherein, inter alia, it is stated-" (f) That accordingly the security deposit of the petitioner was calculated for the period from 22. 4. 95 to 9. 10. 95 and the average figure came out to be Rs. 23, 199/- per month. As the petitioner had already paid Rs. 9600/- initially as security deposit at the time of sanction of the pay phone, she was required to pay the balance (Rs. 23, 199/- Rs. 9600/-) of Rs. 13, 599/- as per the provisions of the revised pay phone policy effective from 24. 7. 93. (g) That accordingly the Commercial Officer (Howrah) Calcutta Telephones, sent a demand note for balance of the security deposit of Rs. 13,599/- to the petitioner to make payment within a period of 15 days. Thereafter the Accouts Officer (Telephone Revenue) Special Cell Calcutta Telephones, through his communication No. BAA/5000/special Cell/pp/osd dated 24. 6. 96 reminded the petitioner to make payment of the demand note of Rs. 13,599/- which is the balance of security deposit after adjustment of the initial amount of Rs. 9600/ -. There should be no misconception to the fact that the demand is not for any additional amount of security deposit. It is, in fact, the balance of the security deposit only which has been calculated on the basis of average revenue of six months as per the provisions of the revised pay phone policy effective from 24. 7. 1993. * * * * (i) In addition to the security deposit as adove, the petitioner has other outstanding arrears to the tune of Rs. 14,705 as detailed below :- Bill dated 9. 8. 96 for Rs. 1640. 00 Bill dated 22. 8. 96 for Rs. 439. 00 Bill dated 10. 9. 96 for Rs. 7. 1993. * * * * (i) In addition to the security deposit as adove, the petitioner has other outstanding arrears to the tune of Rs. 14,705 as detailed below :- Bill dated 9. 8. 96 for Rs. 1640. 00 Bill dated 22. 8. 96 for Rs. 439. 00 Bill dated 10. 9. 96 for Rs. 1226. 00 Bill dated 9. 10. 96 for Rs. 1650. 00 Bill dated 10. 11. 96 for Rs. 1640. 00 Bill dated 10. 12. 96 for Rs. 1600. 00 Bill dated 8. 1. 97 for Rs. 1640. 00 Bill dated 10. 2. 97 for Rs. 1640. 00 Bill dated 7. 3. 97 for Rs. 1680. 00 Total Rs. 14,705. 00 ( 3 ) MR. Banik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is an unemployed lady and pursuant to the scheme of the Central Government itself she had to deposit security deposit of Rs. 9600/ -. The demand for payment of additional security must be held to be an arbitrary one. The learned counsel points out that whereas in the bill in word, "additional security" had been mentioned, in the affidavit-in-opposition it has been stated that the amount of security was calculated on the basis of average revenue of six months as per policy revised on 24. 7. 93. The learned counsel further points out that the respondents have also referred to non-payment of certain bills although the same had been paid. Mr. Banik would urge that in any event, the said policy decision ought to have been communicated to the petitioner. The learned counsel further would urge that as admittedly telephone connection was disconnected in August 1996, there cannot be any bill for the subsequent months as have been detailed in paragraph 4 (i) of the affidavit-in-opposition. ( 4 ) MR. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India, has taken this court through the aforementioned paragraphs of the affidavit-in opposition and submitted that the claim of the respondents appears to be justified. ( 5 ) IT appears that the petitioner in his representation dated 23. 9. ( 4 ) MR. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India, has taken this court through the aforementioned paragraphs of the affidavit-in opposition and submitted that the claim of the respondents appears to be justified. ( 5 ) IT appears that the petitioner in his representation dated 23. 9. 96 as contained in annexure 'd' to the writ application has stated, "it is obvious that as per the agreement entered into by your department, I am liable to pay the additional security deposit if the bill exceeds the limit of the said security amount. But it is observed from my records that the all the bills were paid on or before the due date and most of the bills were within the limit of the same. " It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner had all along been and is still aware of the provision of clause 7 of the aforementioned agreement. It is not for this court to consider as has been urged by Mr. Banik as to whether such amount should be calculated on the basis of the bills raised in the year 1995 or 1996. However, no arbitrariness can be said to have been committed if current bills have been taken into account for the purpose of demand of additional security deposit. The question as to whether the amount demanded from the petitioner is by way of additional security or balance security deposit is immaterial inasmuch it stands admitted that either in terms of clause 7 of the aforementioned agreement or in terms of revised policy decision of the Central Government, the petitioner is bound to pay additional security amount. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, it cannot be said that the bill as contained in annexure 'b' to the writ application has been arbitrarily raised. ( 7 ) SO far as the submission of Mr. Banik to the effect that his client is unable to pay the security amount and she would keep her monthly bill not over Rs. 10,000/- is concerned, it is for the respondents to consider the same and not for this courts. So far as the bills which have been raised after August, 1996 are concerned, prima facie the same appear to be in terms of clause 8 of the aforementioned agreement. 10,000/- is concerned, it is for the respondents to consider the same and not for this courts. So far as the bills which have been raised after August, 1996 are concerned, prima facie the same appear to be in terms of clause 8 of the aforementioned agreement. Furthermore, by reason of disconnection, the agreement does not come to an end and in that view of the matter, the petitioner is bound to pay the minimum guaranteed amount. Reference in this connection may be made to AIR 1990 SC 699 and AIR 1990 SC 706 . However, if there exists any dispute with regard to the actual amount payable by the petitioner in terms of clause 8 aforementioned, the petitioner may raised such dispute before the respondents. The respondents however, should supply copies of such bills to the petitioner with usual details for the purpose of showing as to how and in what manner the said amount have been calculated. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that telephone connection of the petitioner could not have been disconnected for alleged non-payment of certain dues although the petitioner had made payments for the said period. It would, therefore, be open to the petitioner to send receipts of such bills to the concerned respondent so as to enable him to delete the said amount from the arrears of the claims. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has filed her writ application on 17. 1. 97 and her telephone connection is yet to be restored, it is expected that in the event, the petitioner meets the respondent No. 5 together with all her papers, the correct bill would be submitted to the petitioner whereafter in the event of deposit of such amount by the petitioner, the telephone connection should be restored within forty-eight hours. ( 8 ) IT is made clear that only because the telephone connection has been disconnected for non-payment of the additional security amount, the agreement by and between the petitioner and the respondents has not come to an end and as such, the petitioner is also bound to pay the guaranteed amounts in terms of Clause 8 of the aforementioned agreement, it is observed that the respondents should consider the desirability of waiving any amount therefrom if it is permissible in law. It will also be open to the petitioner to make a prayer before the respondent No. 5 to pay the dues in instalments and in the event, the said authority is satisfied with the offer of the petitioner, he may consider the desirability of passing such an order in favour of the petitioner so that telephone line of the petitioner may be restored at an early date. ( 9 ) THIS application is disposed of with the aforementioned directions and observations, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, the same may be given on priority basis. Application disposed of