ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan, J. The petitioner by means of this petition has approached this Court seeking relief for quashing the notice dated 14-3-1996 (Annexure-P-4), issued by the respondent No. 3, Divisional Engineer (Phones); for restraining the respondents from collecting the Demand Note (Annexure-P/5) and quashing the same; issuance of command to the respondents to restore the petitioner's telephone connections bearing Telephone Nos. 21300 with STD/PCO facility and 5062 at an early date and also to quash the order of disconnection passed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 of the petitioner's Telephones No. 21300 with STD/PCO facility and T.C. 5062 at an early date. The petitioner was having telephone connection No. 5062 in his name and was also running a STD Booth (PCO Center), the number of which was 21300. Telephone No. 5062 was not having STD facility. Running of STD/PCO Booth was the source of livelihood of the petitioner. STD/PCO facility was provided to the petitioner under an agreement and the status of the petitioner was that of an agent of the Department. The case of the petitioner as pleaded in paragraph 6.4 of the petition is that the petitioner has no dues against both the telephone connections i.e. against his personal Telephone No. 5062 and also against STD/PCO Both Telephone No. 21300. Shri Y.K. Verma, Sub-Divisional Officer (Phones) made a surprise visit along with his three Inspectors to the petitioner's STD Center and he took away the monitor, which, is an instrument for running the STD Phones. Both telephone connections i.e. private and STD/PCO were disconnected on 6-3-1996. The petitioner in this respect lodged a report with the police. Officer-In-Charge of the Telephone Department lodged a report at the Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur to the effect that when STD was made with telephone bearing No. 21300, bill of said STD came from telephone bearing No. 22457, which is the telephone connection of one Pawan Kumar Agrawal and prayed that offence under sections 397, 420, Indian Penal Code and section 20(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 may be registered against the petitioner and Pawan Kumar Agrawal. Consequent upon the aforesaid report to the police, the police registered the offence against the petitioner as well as against Pawan Kumar Agrawal. Consequent upon the aforesaid report to the police, the police registered the offence against the petitioner as well as against Pawan Kumar Agrawal. It is not disclosed in the petition as to what happened in the criminal case registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under sections 397, 420, Indian Penal Code and section 20(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Thereafter on 14-3-1996 a notice with Demand Notice No. TRA/Def/ Unauthorised/2 dated 14-3-1996 was issued and served on the petitioner on 15-3-1996. The said notice was to the effect that the petitioner's STD/PCO was found working unauthorisedly with the telephone connection of Pawan Agrawal's Telephone Connection No. 22457 with effect from 12-10-1995 and dues outstanding was specified at Rs. 1,09,617/- and it was also stated that telephone No. 22457 was found connected with petitioner's PCO Monitor on 6-3-1996 and STD calls were made from Telephone Connection No. 22457 and during the period the STD/PCO No. 21300 was found disconnected from the Monitor. It is also stated in the said notice that in the event of failure to make the payment of Demand Note, all telephone connections i.e. T.C. Nos. 21300, 5062 and 22457 will be disconnected. The said notice contains an incorrect statement that telephone connections will be disconnected within seven days i.e. by 22-3-1996, but the fact was that the disconnection was made on 6-3-1996. The petitioner objected to that notice on the basis of illegal billing and also objected to the disconnection of his telephone connections for non-payment of demand under the notice of demand and his further objection was that he is not liable and responsible for the Demand Note of Mr. Pawan Kumar Agrawal related to his Telephone No. 22457 and prayed that his both telephone connections may be restored. This objection was made in writing on 21-3-1996 but nothing was done. Thereafter on 12-4-1996 the petitioner again served a notice stating that he has never used the Telephone No. 22457 and has not committed any offence and again disputed the Demand Note as issued to him by the respondents after disconnection of his telephone connections and he made a prayer that the matter may kindly be handed over to Arbitrator as per provision of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Rule 421 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') a notice was necessary to a subscriber but no notice was given to the petitioner before disconnection of his telephone connections, as such, action of the respondent qua the disconnection of the telephone connections was illegal. Rule 421 of the Rules operates in a different field. It does not operate in the field where the objection relates to the illegal billing or excessive billing. For illegal or excessive billing, the provision is under Rule 443 i.e. "Default of payment" and on the basis of default of payment telephone could be disconnected. So far as personal telephone of the petitioner is concerned, there was no bill against that and, therefore, there was no question of default on the part of the petitioner in regard to his personal telephone i.e. Telephone No. 5062 and learned counsel submitted that under Rule 443, personal telephone of the petitioner could not have been disconnected. Rule 443 of the Rules is as extracted below: 443. Default, 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 telephones or the telex so disconnected may, if the Telegraph Authority thinks 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. The subscriber shall pay all the above charges within such period as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority from time to time. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was having two telephone connections and for default of payment relating to any telephone connection, all the telephone connections can be disconnected, as according to him, the words used in Rule 443 are "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 disconnected without notice." Out of the two telephones with the petitioner one is his personal telephone and the other telephone is the telephone of the Department, as the petitioner was acting as an agent of the Department and accordingly whatever may be the interpretation under Rule 443, as to whether for default of one telephone, all the telephones of a subscriber, if he is having more than one, can be disconnected or not. The position comes to that category of two telephones is different in the present case. So far as personal telephone of the petitioner is concerned, admittedly against that there is no demand and no bill was outstanding. The demand was against the STD/PCO Center telephone, which was not the personal telephone of the petitioner but was the telephone of the Department and the petitioner was only an agent of the Department and, therefore, personal telephone of the petitioner could not have been disconnected under Rule 443 of the Rules. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indu vs. Director, Telecoms, 1990 MPU 813 (Para 6). Para 6 does not deal with the question which is involved in the present petition. Here the question is different. The petitioner was having one personal telephone connection and the other telephone connection was of the Department with the petitioner in the capacity as an agent of the Department for the purpose of public convenience for running STD/PCO Booth. The category of the telephone is different and in this view of the matter this decision would not be attracted as in the said decision no such controversy arose and no such controversy was decided. The category of the telephone is different and in this view of the matter this decision would not be attracted as in the said decision no such controversy arose and no such controversy was decided. In view of above, the petitioner is entitled for restoration of his personal telephone i.e. Telephone No. 5062 forthwith according to law on payment of the charges as may be permissible under the law. So far as the other telephone connection i.e. STD/PCO No. 21300 is concerned, for that the petitioner is an agent and the liability of the petitioner could be settled by means of an Arbitrator as provided under the agreement entered into between the Department and the petitioner. So far as any dispute regarding the billing to the STD/PCO No. 21300 is concerned, the same could be referred to an Arbitrator as the learned counsel for the respondents invited the attention of the Court to a decision of this Court dated 29-3-1995 given in Writ Petition No. 4198 of 1994. (Shri Abhishek Tiwari and 4 others vs. Union of India and 2 others) wherein this Court considered Conditions No. 11, 12 and 13 of the agreement. Condition No. 13 of the agreement provided that in case of failure to pay the above amount on due date telephone will be disconnected and the General Manager will have the right to take action as deemed fit and the decision of General Manager will be final and binding on the Licensee." This decision related to the STD/PCO connection and in that case the status of the petitioners in that case was that of Licensee as they were agents of the Department. In view of above, it would be open for the petitioner to refer the dispute to the General Manager (Telecom), Bilaspur, if he considers to do so within a period of two months from today and, if any, such dispute is referred to the General Manager (Telecom), he shall decide the same giving opportunity to the petitioner. In view of above, the writ petition partly succeeds. So far as telephone connection of the petitioner i.e. Telephone No. 5062 which is for his personal service is concerned, same shall be restored forthwith on payment of the charges as may be liable to be paid by the petitioner in accordance with the law. In view of above, the writ petition partly succeeds. So far as telephone connection of the petitioner i.e. Telephone No. 5062 which is for his personal service is concerned, same shall be restored forthwith on payment of the charges as may be liable to be paid by the petitioner in accordance with the law. So far as the dispute relating to the billing of the telephone connection No. 21300 is concerned, which relates to the STD/PCO facility in regard to which the status of the petitioner is that of an agent of the Department, the same shall be referred to the General Manager (Telecom), Bilaspur provided the petitioner files his objection to the billing in relation to the Telephone No. 21300 within a period of two months from today. In the circumstances of the case, the cost is made easy. Final Result : Allowed