Disposed

Krishna Kumar Boobna v. the Union of India and Ors.

Patna HC5 Feb 2015CWJC/5290/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an unopposed writ petition regarding disputed telephone bills, the Court, noting the lack of appearance by the petitioner, directed them to file an application with the General Manager to invoke a duty to hear before disposing of the writ. The writ was then disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

petitioner directed to approach the General Manager with an application; petition disposed of.

Krishna Kumar Boobna Vs the Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5290 of 1996

¶3

=========================================================== Krishna Kumar Boobna son of late Ram Ballabh Prasad Boobna, resident of Mohalla-Pokhra, PO-Hajipur, PS-Hajipur Town, District-Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India. 2. The General Manager, Department of Telecommunication, Patna, District-Patna 3. The Director, Finance Department of Telecommunication, Patna, District-Patna 4. The Accounts Officer(Revenue), Department of Telecommunication, Patna, District-Patna 5. The Deputy General Manager, (Admn.), Department of Telecommunication, Patna, District-Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

¶4

For the Petitioner/s

¶5

For the Union of India : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sharma, CGC.

¶6

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-02-2015

¶7

No one appears either on behalf of the petitioner or from the

¶8

side of the BSNL. The counsel for the Union of India is present.

¶9

As the matter is of 1996 and the parties are not coming forward to press this application, this Court is deciding the matter on the basis of materials available on record.

¶10

In the present case, the petitioner highlights his grievance with respect to exorbitant billing in respect to his telephone no. 224105 installed in Flat No. 301, Udaigiri Apartment premises which is said to have not been in use and lying locked for the past three years. Claim has been made that STD facility had not been supplied nor provided in respect of the said telephone and, as such, even in the normal course of things the three bi-monthly bills aggregate about Rs. 66,000/-, are even prima facie not tenable only on the basis of local calls and the enquiry report supports the case of the petitioner is that even distant

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.5290 of 1996 dt.05-02-2015

¶12

2/2

¶13

end parties to whom test calls were made by the Enquiry Officer did not confirm their acquaintance with the petitioner.

¶14

In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that the telephone connection was given to the petitioner with the STD facility right from the beginning. When the petitioner had no requirement of the telephone, he could have very well placed it under safe custody or might have kept it under temporary closure after due information of the telephone department.

¶15

In rejoinder, the petitioner has disputed the claim of the respondent and stated that the telephone bill that has been levied upon the petitioner is a huge amount which is quite impossible and, as such, liable to be quashed.

¶16

As the parties are not coming forward, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, if so desired, may file an application before the General Manger, Department of Telecommunication, Patna.

¶17

If such application is filed, the authority will be obliged to hear the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

¶18

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.

¶19

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶20

Mahesh/-

¶21

Krishna Kumar Boobna v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Boobna v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Phulwarisharif Prakhand Matsya Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Ambuja Electrocastings Ltd. Vs Bihar State Electricity BOARDand

Haridwar Pandey Vs the Collector,Bhojpur and Ors.

Alay Nabi Wakf Estate NO.705 Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sheikh Israt Khan @ Ali and Ors. Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Shree Vishnu Cold STORAGEand Vs State of Bihar and Ors.