# Rajesh Kumar v. D.C.P.F., Sonebhadra & another

- **Citation:** (1999) 1 ILRA 178
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1998-06-02
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-kumar-v-d-c-p-f-sonebhadra-another-39088
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

178 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
Annexure-1 to the petition which is a copy of the plaint the prayer is
that respondent no.2 should be gratuity and appears of salary. In our
opinion, this does not come within the score of consumer Protection
Act. As regards gratuity, respondent no.2 should have approached
the authority concerned under the payment of Gratuity Act and as
regards his Salary, he should approach the appropriate forum.
However, we are of the clear opinion that the District Consumer
Forum has no jurisdiction in service matters. Hence , we quash the
impugned order.

The Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impunged order
dated 9th April,1997 is quashed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 6/
7+( +21·%/( 6/ 6$5$) -
 6$5$) -
:ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
0V $MD\ ,URQ 6WHHO :RUNV DQRWKHU
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
8QLRQ RI ,QGLD RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHUV
 6UL 9. 6KXNOD
 6UL $WXO .XPDU 3DQGH\
&RXQVHO IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV
 6UL 0RKG ,VKD .KDQ
 6UL 61 6ULYDVWDYD
 6UL &KDQGUD 3UDNDVK
 6&
,QGLDQ 7HOHJUDSK 5XOHV25XOH 2FRQVXPHU KDYLQJ PRUH WKDQ
RQH WHOHSKRQH FRQQHFWLRQ2GHIDXOW FRPPLWWHG LQ SD\PHQW RI %LOO LQ
UHVSHFW
RI
RQH
FRQQHFWLRQ2RWKHU
FRQQHFWLRQV
DOVR
PXVW
EH
GLVFRQQHFWHG 3DUD

1998
------
Rajesh Kumar
 Vs.
D.C.P.F.,
Sonebhadra
& another
------
M. Katju, J.
S.L.Saraf, J.
1998
------
November, 18
1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 179
By the Court

Heard Sri V.K.Shukla for the petitioners and Sri Mohd. Isha Khan
for the respondents.

The Petitioner have prayed for quashing of the notice dated 2nd June
1998 and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to disconnect
four of his telephones. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated
that those telephone connections.

It appears that petitioner No.2 Vijay Kumar Gupta was a partner in
the firm Lala Sukhdev Ram Rolling Mills and there was a telephone
connection no. 348597 in the name of that firm Obviously, since the
petitioner no.2 was a partner in the said firm, he is liable to pay the
telephone bills of the firm since under Section 25 of the PartnerShip
Act each partner is individually and severly liable.

Learned councel for the petitioner urged that the other telephone
connection bearing no. 370077,342619,340440 and 371440 are in the
name of petitioner and hence they could not have been disconnected
for the dues against the firm Lala Sukhdev Ram Rolling Mills. We
are not in agreement with this submission Rule 443 of the Indian
Telegraph Rules States as follws. :

"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 accordence with these rules , or bills for
charges in respect of calls (Local and Trunks) 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
reconnection fee together with the rental for such portion of the
itervening 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 language of Rule 443 is very clear. If a person is in default in
payment of telephones dues of one telephone and if he has any other
telephone connection(s) also, the other telephone connection can also
1998
------
M/s Ajay Iron
& Steel works
& another
 Vs.
U.O.I & others
------
M. Katju, J.
S.L.Saraf, J.
180 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
be disconnected in view of rule 443. Since the petitioner was liable
to pay the dues in respect of telephone no. 348597. Hence the other
four telephone connections could also be disconnected. If however,
the petitioner pays the telephone bill in respect of telephone no.
348597, the other telephone connection will be reconnected
forthwith provided he has paid the bills for those telephones
connection also

With the above observation, the petition is disposed of.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
+21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 6/ 6$5$) -
7+( +21·%/( 6/ 6$5$) -
:ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
5DPHVK &KDQGUD &KDQFKDO
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHU
 6UL $VKRN %KXVKDQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV
 6&
6HFWLRQ RI 83 0XQLFLSDOLWLHV $FW2WKH FKDUJHV DJDLQVW WKH
SHWLWLRQHU ZHUH IRXQG WR EH IDOVH IUDYHORXV DQG PRWLYDWHG2LI WKH
HOHFWHG )XQFWLRQDULHV DUH UHPRYHG EHFDXVH RI VWULFNV LW ZLOO EH
YHU\ HDV\ WR LQVWLJDWH D VWULNH DQG JHW WKH HOHFWHG )XQFWLRQDULHV
UHPRYHG2WKH LPSXJQHG RUGHUV TXDVKHG
By the Court

This writ petition has been filed against the impunged order of the
state Government dated 24.6.1998 Annexure 5 to the writ petition
passed under Section 48(2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts of this case
are that the petitioner was elected as President of Nagar palika
Parisad, Firozabad and took oath of his office on 2.12.1995. It is
alleged in the petition that the respondent no. 3 is an MLA from
1998
------
October, 27