JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS ( 1 ) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of BSNL dated november 7th, 2003, relevant portion whereof is:"considering the notice served vice letter No. AOTR/ct-111/os/review 07-08-2003 as per CDF decision as above and due to non-payment of outstanding due of Rs. 1,56,552 :00 till date and your letter no. RB/1173 dt. 07. 10. 2003. You are once again requested to pay the outstanding dues by 15. 11. 2003 failing which your other Tele Nos. 2243-6337 and 2243-5620 will be disconnected and other departmental action as well as legal action as well as legal action will be initiated against you without further notice. " ( 2 ) THE respondents have filed an opposition affirmed long ago. Advocate for the petitioners prays for an opportunity of filing reply. He says that the reply was not prepared, since the opposition was served long after the due date. I do not find any reason to adjourn the hearing of the matter. It seems to me that the writ petition can be decided even without looking into the opposition filed, since on the admitted facts, stated in the writ petition, only a pure question of law is to be decided. The question is whether for default in payment of the billed amounts with respect to one telephone, the authorities were entitled to threaten the petitioners with disconnection of their other telephones regarding which they were not defaulters. ( 3 ) THE undisputed facts are these. In 1989 the petitioners received the bills for Rs. 81,111/- for cycle 6 of 1989 and Rs. 66,628/- for cycle 8 of 1989 in connection with their telephone No. 284214. They did not pay the bills. In November, 1989 that telephone was disconnected. They were enjoying service through two other telephones. In 1993 they moved the State Consumer Disputes Redressal commission for an order directing restoration of connection to that telephone. On February 24,1993 the Commission made an order restraining the authorities from disconnecting the other telephones. In 1995 that case was dismissed for default. Consequently in 1995 the authorities again called upon the petitioners to pay the bills. It was again said that in default of payment the other telephones would be disconnected. Nothing actually happened. On February 24,1993 the Commission made an order restraining the authorities from disconnecting the other telephones. In 1995 that case was dismissed for default. Consequently in 1995 the authorities again called upon the petitioners to pay the bills. It was again said that in default of payment the other telephones would be disconnected. Nothing actually happened. In March, 2000 the authorities again issued notice that in default of payment of the old dues the other telephones would be disconnected according to provisions in Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. This time also nothing actually happened. When a similar notice was issued by the authorities on November 7th, 2003 the petitioners took out this writ petition. ( 4 ) I agree with Advocate for the authorities that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief from the Writ Court, essentially a Court equity, when for no valid reason they abandoned the proceedings initiated by them before the commission, after enjoying interim relief granted by that forum for around two years. I also agree with him that conduct of the petitioners cannot be said to be clean. They never wanted adjudication of the 1989 disputes by arbitrator. They were apparently happy that the authorities could not compel them to pay the billed amounts, and that for not making the payment they were not facing any real problem, since they were enjoying service through two other working telephones. If the petitioners were really serious about getting any dispute adjudicated and determined, they ought to have approached the appropriate forum (including the Writ Court), with utmost expedition. The dispute, if any, arose in 1989, and the writ petition came to be filed only in 2003. Hence, there is absolutely no reason to give them any relief. ( 5 ) AS to the question of power of the authorities to disconnect the other working telephones, Advocate for the petitioners argues that in view of the single Bench decision of this Court in Debi Prasad Pal vs. General Manager calcutta Telephones (South) and Ors. Hence, there is absolutely no reason to give them any relief. ( 5 ) AS to the question of power of the authorities to disconnect the other working telephones, Advocate for the petitioners argues that in view of the single Bench decision of this Court in Debi Prasad Pal vs. General Manager calcutta Telephones (South) and Ors. , 2001 (1) CLT 34 (HC), and the Single Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Mangal Sain and Sons vs. M. T. N. L. , 2003 (8)ILD 113 (Del), the authorities were not empowered to say that in default of payment of the alleged dues of the disconnected telephone, they would disconnect the other working telephones of the petitioners. In reply, Advocate for the authorities refers me to Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules,1951, and the division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. S. J. Pandit, AIR 1997 Ker 153 ; and submits that the authorities were fully empowered to disconnect the other working telephones of the petitioners. ( 6 ) I fully agree with Advocate for the authorities that the authorities possessed the requisite power to disconnect the other working telephones of the petitioners for non-payment of the dues of the disconnected telephone. The single Bench decisions of this Court and the Delhi High Court cited to me did not consider the provisions in Rule 443. On the other hand, the Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court was given after considering that Rule. I fully agree with the opinion of Their Lordships of the Kerala High Court that Rule 443 empowers the authorities to disconnect working telephones of a subscriber or consumer, if he declines to pay billed amount of his disconnected telephone. Hence, I find that the authorities did not commit any wrong by issuing the notice dated November 7th, 2003. ( 7 ) FOR these reasons I find no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order for costs in it. Writ petition dismissed.