Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. Heard both sides. 2. The question that arises for consideration in the instant case is whether for default in payment of telephone dues by the partner of a firm with regard to his individual telephone, the telephone allotted to the firm of which he is a partner can be disconnected? 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that telephone No. 700589 of Kozhikode Exchange is allotted to the firm by name 'M/s. Hajee Mohamed Baramy Sons' and that telephone No. 300020 of the same Exchange is a telephone allotted to the partner by name B. Abdulla Baramy. Based on the decisions in Abraham v. Telecom District Manager (1996 (2) K.L.T. 241) and Bulkies v. Union of India (2000 (2) K.L.T. 252) it is contended that only the others telephones, if any, in the name of the defaulting subscriber can be disconnected and that the firm is distinct from the individual partners. 3. The learned standing counsel for the Central Government pointed out, during hearing, that in the particular case the firm has been using telephone No. 300020 also for its business purposes even though that telephone is actually in the name of the aforesaid partner. To demonstrate this, he has made available, during hearing, a letter head of the firm where reference is made to telephone No. 300020 as well. 4. It is useful to refer to R.443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules: "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 telephone or 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." What is clear from the above is that for default committed in payment of rent, it is only the telephone of the 'subscriber' that can be disconnected. The other telephone that might be disconnected has to be one 'rented by him'. There is considerable merit in the contention of the petitioner that the firm and its partners have to be treated differently in this regard. The telephone in the name of the firm cannot be said to be the one rented by the partner and vice versa. The department will not be giving a refund in respect of a deposit or excess payment due to the firm in the name of its individual partner if he claims it in his individual capacity. The reverse also is obviously applicable. Merely because the firm's letter head makes a reference to the telephone number of the partner also it cannot be said that the subscriber of both are one and the same. It is open to a partner to make use of his own telephone in his office instead of the firm's telephone. That does not mean that there is identity of the subscriber. 5. In Abraham v. Telecom District Manager (1996 (2) K.L.T. 241) it was observed by this Court that a 'subscriber', for the aforesaid Rule, is a person who has subscribed for a particular telephone whether it be an individual or a partnership firm or a corporate body. It will not include the relations who have independent connections and whose phone the defaulter may actually be using. 6. In Bulkies v. Union of India (2000 (2) K.L.T. 252) the question was whether the telephone in the name of a wife can be disconnected for default of the husband. There also a distinction was drawn between the two and the answer was in the negative. According to me, the provision in R.443, as it is worded, does not appear to give scope for any doubt that for default committed by a subscriber only the telephone or telex service rented by the same subscriber can be disconnected. Here subscriber means the applicant or his authorised transferee. The firm of which a particular subscriber is a partner cannot be taken as a subscriber for the purpose of R.443. Here subscriber means the applicant or his authorised transferee. The firm of which a particular subscriber is a partner cannot be taken as a subscriber for the purpose of R.443. For recovering the dues and for default mentioned in Ext. P6, the telephone authority has therefore no jurisdiction to proceed to disconnect the telephone of the firm as proposed in Ext. P5. Accordingly, Ext. P5 is set aside. 7. It is brought to the notice of the Court through C.M.P. No. 40731/2000 that the telephone of the firm has already been disconnected pursuant to Ext. P5 notice. In view of the decision aforementioned, it is for the authority to restore the connection. This will be done within a period of three working days from the date on which a copy of this judgment is produced before the second respondent.