Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Since the issues involved in the above writ petitions have arisen out of the same facts and circumstances, a common order is passed. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner in W.P.No.3210 of 2001, is having the telephone with telephone No.4990570 in his premises at No.14-B, 3rd Floor, Rams Apartment, 78A, T.T.K. Road, Alwarpet, Chennai, under the OYT Scheme. The said telephone had been installed in the premises of the petitioner in the year, 1987. Since the usage of the telephone is minimal, the bill amounts had varied from 350/- to 550/-. However, the petitioner had received the bill, dated 30.10.2000, for the period 8. 2000 to 30.9.2000 for Rs.2,20,691/-. Since the petitioner had not used his telephone to that extent, he had made a detailed representation to the third respondent, on 210. 2000, requesting him to investigate the matter, apart from referring the disputed bill to arbitration. The petitioner had also requested the third respondent to issue a provisional bill so as to enable him to pay the amount taking into consideration the average of three months bill amount prior to the disputed bill, dated 30.10.2000. On 11. 2000, the second respondent had sent a letter stating that the telephone bill had been issued to the petitioner based on the actual usage of the telephone. .4. While so, the petitioners telephone had been disconnected for non-payment of the bill amount. It was found that most of the calls, which had been made to the numbers starting from 0900, have been mostly made when the petitioner was away from his place. Since there was abnormal misuse of the facility, which has been widely reported, and since it had given rise to a number of litigations, the respondents had withdrawn the facilities during the months of November and December 2000. W.P.No.3357 of 2001: .5. It has been stated that the petitioner in W.P.No.3357 of 2001 is having the telephone with telephone No.4971743 in his premises at No.7, Manasveni, 78-A, T.T.K. Road, Alwarpet, Chennai, under the OYT Scheme. The said telephone had been installed in the premises of the petitioner in the year, 1996. Since the usage of the telephone is minimal, the average bill amount had never exceeded Rs.1,000/-. However, the petitioner had received the bill, dated 8. The said telephone had been installed in the premises of the petitioner in the year, 1996. Since the usage of the telephone is minimal, the average bill amount had never exceeded Rs.1,000/-. However, the petitioner had received the bill, dated 8. 2000, for the period 6. 2000 to 37. 2000 for Rs.95,445/-. Since the petitioner had not used his telephone to that extent, he had made a detailed representation to the concerned officials, on 30.8.2000, requesting them to investigate the matter and to send an amended bill to enable him to make the necessary payment. On 20.9.2000, the second respondent had sent a letter stating that the telephone bill had been issued to the petitioner based on the actual usage of the telephone. Further, in the bill, dated 10. 2000, for the period from 8. 2000 to 30.9.2000, a sum of RS.30,485/-, had been demanded for 23271 units. Since the petitioner was not liable to pay such huge amounts, the bills remained unpaid. 6. While so, the petitioners telephone had been disconnected for non-payment of the bill amount. It was found that most of the calls, which had been made to the numbers starting from 0900, have been mostly made, when the petitioner was away from his place. Further, the excess charges relate to the alleged calls made to chat lines through 0900 facility. However, the petitioner was not aware of the existence of the said facility and the specific telephone numbers through which the chart lines could be accessed. The facility had been tagged on to the S.T.D. facility of the petitioners telephone number by the respondents, without the knowledge of the petitioner and without his consent. Since the unilateral act of the Department is arbitrary and illegal, they cannot demand the excess charges from the petitioner. Since there was an abnormal misuse of the facility, which has been widely reported and since it had given rise to a number of litigations, the respondents had withdrawn the facilities during the months of November and December 2000. 7. At the stage of the final hearing of the writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had placed before this Court an order of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 16. 2007, made in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Chennai Telephones, rep. by its Chief General Manager and another Vs. K.Ramgopal (W.A.Nos.2592 to 2594 of 2004). .8. 7. At the stage of the final hearing of the writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had placed before this Court an order of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 16. 2007, made in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Chennai Telephones, rep. by its Chief General Manager and another Vs. K.Ramgopal (W.A.Nos.2592 to 2594 of 2004). .8. In the said writ appeals, the orders passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in various writ petitions, quashing the bills issued by the respondent Department and directing the respondents to raise a fresh bill, excluding the charges for "0900" series billing under the Premium Rate Services, had been ordered. In some cases, the respondent Department was directed to investigate the cases relating to the Premium Rate Services and to cancel such services, if it did not conform to the guidelines issued by the Department. Directions had also been issued to restore the service connections, which had been disconnected for non-payment of the bills. By the said order, dated 16. 2007, the Division Bench of this Court had confirmed the orders passed in the writ petitions and had dismissed the writ appeals filed by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Chennai Telephones. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had also submitted that with regard to the telephone bill, dated 10. 2000, pertaining to the period from 8. 2000 to 30.9.2000, for the telephone No.4990570, a provisional bill (a duplicate telephone bill) had been given to the petitioner, excluding "0900" charges. The bill amount had also been paid, in view of the interim order passed by this Court in W.M.P.No.4436 of 2001 in W.P.No.3210 of 2001. 11. With regard to the telephone bills, dated 8. 2000 and 10. 2000, pertaining to the periods from 6. 2000 to 37. 2000 and 8. 2000 to 30.9.2000 for the telephone No.4971743, it has also been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that a provisional bill (a duplicate telephone bill) had been given to the petitioner subscriber, excluding "0900" charges and it had also been paid. 2000 and 10. 2000, pertaining to the periods from 6. 2000 to 37. 2000 and 8. 2000 to 30.9.2000 for the telephone No.4971743, it has also been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that a provisional bill (a duplicate telephone bill) had been given to the petitioner subscriber, excluding "0900" charges and it had also been paid. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that he does not have any knowledge about the payments made by the petitioners, with regard to the provisional bills provided to them, excluding "0900" charges. 12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, dated 16. 2007, made in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Chennai Telephones, rep. by its Chief General Manager and another Vs. K.Ramgopal (W.A.Nos.2592 to 2594 of 2004), the petitioners are directed to pay the amounts due to the respondents as given in the provisional bills, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the amounts had not been paid till date. W.P.No.3210 of 2001: With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.