ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.--Petitioner is a subscriber of telephone Nos. 6596219, 6588022 in the name of the Petitioner itself and also telephone Nos. 6587612 and 6687662 in the name of K. Yajnanarayana, who it is claimed, is an office bearer of the Petitioner-company. It appears that the said Yajnanarayana also has another firm by the name Semiconductor Technology and in this capacity has obtained another telephone bearing No. 6597157. All these telephone connections are being provided by the Respondent. 2. It is also averred that the Petitioner has hired premises belonging to one Smt. Suguna Santosh at No. 58, 35th Main, BTM 2nd Stage, Bank Officers Colony, Bangalore-560 076 where the Petitioner is carrying on its business and all the above five telephone numbers are in use at this premises. 3. It also transpires that the land lady Smt. Suguna Santosh has been provided with another telephone connection with No. 6780490 and that the Petitioner was making use of this telephone facility also and at the same premises. 4. It appears that there were certain defaults in payment of rental and other charges in respect of the two telephone numbers namely 6780490 in the name of the said Smt. Suguna Santosh and said to be used by the Petitioner, as also in respect of telephone No. 6687662 provided to K. Yajnanarayana in his personal capacity. For non-payment of telephone bills in respect of these two telephones, the Respondent had proposed action to disconnect all the telephones as per a communication dated 13.12.2002 (copy at Annexure-B to the writ petition). 5. It is aggrieved by this communication and threatened action on the part of the Respondent to disconnect all the telephone connections provided to the Petitioner, that the Petitioner has approached this Court for relief. 6. Sri Dalwai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent has threatened to disconnect the telephone connections provided to the Petitioner for non-payment of amounts due in respect of a telephone connection not provided to the Petitioner and such action is not permitted in law. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in Hotel Bheema Vs. The Telecom District Engineer and Another, ILR (1996) KAR 3072 . 7. Statement of objections has been filed on behalf of the Respondent. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in Hotel Bheema Vs. The Telecom District Engineer and Another, ILR (1996) KAR 3072 . 7. Statement of objections has been filed on behalf of the Respondent. It is interalia asserted that the Petitioner, either in the name of the firm or as represented by the said K. Yajnanarayana have been making use of the telephone facility provided to the premises in question in respect of the telephone numbers as detailed below: Telephone No. Name Serviced Date 6596219 Unisoft India (P) Ltd. 29.3.2002 6588022 -do- 18.6.2002 6587612 Yagna Narayana K 23.2.2000 6587662 -do- 8.11.1999 6597157 Semiconductor Tech Prop. Yagna Narayana K 26.4.2002 6780490 Suguna Santosh 20.1.2000 It is also stated that the Petitioner had sought to espouse the cause of the said Smt. Suguna Santosh in whose name telephone connection 6780490 had been provided, when the Petitioner had been apprised that certain amounts were outstanding in respect of the telephone connection provided in the name of the land lady bearing telephone No. 6780490. A letter written by the Petitioner dated 27.8.2002 (copy of which is produced as Annexure-R1) and another letter dated 21.11.2002 (copy of which is produced as Annexure-R2) are relied upon in this regard to indicate that the Petitioner has made use of the telephone facility even in respect of telephone No. 6780490 and that as such is bound to make payment in respect of telephone charges in respect of this number also. 8. It is also asserted that the Respondent can disconnect all telephone lines working in one premises for non-payment of telephone charges in respect of any one of the telephone working in that premises, as enabled under Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 ('the Rules' for short). 9. It is been pointed out that the Petitioner was in arrears of payment even in respect of telephone No. 6687662 and as such cannot seek any relief from this Court. 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed a memo before this Court indicating that telephone charges due in respect of telephone No. 6687662 has been subsequently paid and this is not in dispute. 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed a memo before this Court indicating that telephone charges due in respect of telephone No. 6687662 has been subsequently paid and this is not in dispute. The outstanding amount is only in respect of telephone No. 6780490 for a sum of Rs.71,733/- and the question is as to whether the Respondent can, for non-payment of this amount, disconnect all the telephones provided to the Petitioner on the strength of Rule 443. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has also urged that there is no bona fides on the part of the Petitioner in seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that no relief can be given to the Petitioner inasmuch as the Petitioner had been factually making use of the telephone facility from the connection given to Smt. Suguna Santosh in respect of telephone No. 6780490 and as such the Petitioner is in fact liable to make payment of charges for calls emanating from this number. 12. Rule 443 is a penal provision and it is a coercive measure which enables the Telecom authorities to disconnect all telephone connections provided to a subscriber even if there is default in payment of telephone charges in respect of any one of the connection provided to the subscriber/s. Rule 443 reads as under: 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. 13. The subscriber shall pay all the above charges within such period as may be prescribed by the Telegraph Authority from time to time. 13. The Rule specifically says that it is for non-payment of telephone charges to the service provided to a subscriber, telephone connection in respect of any other telephone or telephones rented by him may be disconnected without notice. The rule enables disconnection of other telephone numbers rented out to one subscriber if there is default in payment of any one of the connection provided to the subscriber. Though the Petitioner might have in fact made use of the facility of telephone which had been provided to some other person, this rule cannot be invoked for disconnecting the telephones provided to the Petitioner for non-payment of bills in respect of a telephone connection provided to some other person. It is not in dispute that the telephone connection in respect of telephone No. 6780490 stands in the name of Smt. Suguna Santosh and not in the name of the Petitioner. For non-payment of amounts due in respect of that telephone number, telephone connections provided to the Petitioner cannot be disconnected even as per this rule. The Rule 443 being in the nature of a penal provision, has to be strictly construed and the scope of the rule cannot be enlarged so as to rope in other situations that may be similar or from the peculiar facts and circumstances otherwise justify such action. It is open to the Respondent to realise the amount from the very subscriber to whom the telephone connection had been provided and by use of all such coercive methods as are permitted in law. In so far as the Petitioner is concerned, the provisions of Rule 443 of the Rules cannot be pressed into service for disconnecting telephone connections in the name of the Petitioner for non-payment of amount due in respect of telephone No. 6780490 standing in the name of another person namely Smt. Suguna Santosh. If the Respondent is enabled to realise this amount also from the Petitioner through other methods and as permitted under the rules, it is open for them to do so. 14. To this extent, the communication at Annexure-B stands quashed and the Respondent is directed to ensure the telephone connections provided to the Petitioner is not disconnected for non-payment of telephone bills in respect of telephone No. 6780490. 15. 14. To this extent, the communication at Annexure-B stands quashed and the Respondent is directed to ensure the telephone connections provided to the Petitioner is not disconnected for non-payment of telephone bills in respect of telephone No. 6780490. 15. However it is made clear that it is open to the Respondent to not only disconnect the telephone facility provided to the very telephone number, but also to proceed against the subscriber of this telephone number, for recovering the amount due in respect of this number by resorting to such provisions as are provided in law. 16. Rule issued and made absolute.