1997 PLP 2701 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Disconnection of petitioner's telephone‑‑ Grounds mentioned in disconnection order were that petitioner was habitual in misusing the same as illegal P.C.O. (Public Call Office)‑‑‑List published by Department contained certain names of persons who were misusing their telephones as P.C.O.‑‑‑Such list was typed one and petitioner's name was not included therein‑‑‑Petitioner's telephone number was subsequently handwritten and included in that list which were to be disconnected‑‑‑ Possibility could not be ruled out that petitioner had been victimized just because there were some: reports against husband of petitioner (who was running a general store) that he was misusing his separate telephone installed at the store and same had been disconnected on basis of those reports‑‑‑Authorities could not point out any positive report or any proper enquiry ever having been conducted against petitioner to justify disconnection of petitioner's telephone number‑‑‑Authority was directed to immediately restore petitioner's telephone. Raja Muhammad Suhail Iftikhar for Petitioner. M. Shamaher Iqbal Chughtai for Respondent. Petitioner's telephone No.7580 was installed on 4‑5‑1991 on the first floor of her residence at 65‑B, Model Town‑B, Bahawalpur. There are shops on the ground floor of these premises and the petitioner's husband runs a shop over there known as Fateh General Store which contains its independent telephone. On 15‑1‑1994, the Director (CTR) made a surprise visit with respondents 1 and 2 to the premises and show‑cause notices were issued on 19‑1‑1994 by the respondents to some of the occupants for unauthorised shifting of telephone or for misusing the telephone as P.C.O. etc. but no show‑cause notice was issued to the petitioner. However, on 10‑9‑1994, respondent No. l issued a show‑cause notice to the petitioner on the report of the sectional staff of Bahawalpur Exchange that petitioner's telephone No.7580 is being used at Fateh General Store as illegal P.C.O. and that she is habitual in misusing the same as illegal P.C.O. In her reply dated 13‑9‑1994, the petitioner denied the allegations and clarified that she has never used her telephone as P.C.O. and that previously, an enquiry was conducted and the allegation was proved to be wrong by the Divisional Engineer and the Director (CTR). However, the petitioner's telephone was disconnected on 24‑9‑1994.

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the report dated 8‑9‑1994 of the Assistant Engineer Phones, Bahawalpur/Incharge Sectional Staff, there is no allegation against the petitioner that she is misusing her telephone No.7580 illegally as a P.C.O. In regard to the petitioner's telephone, it is stated in the report that this telephone alognwith two other telephones is being used on the same spot. It is contended that admittedly, the petitioner's telephone is being used on the same spot. It is contended that admittedly, the petitioner's telephone and the other two telephones mentioned in the report are located on the same premises i.e. 165‑B, Model Town‑B, Bahawalpur and as such, there is no specific allegation and no proof that the petitioner is using her telephone as P.C.' O. Fateh General Store has its own telephone and previously, it had telephone No.6723 which was a sanctioned P.C.O. As such, it is contended that there was no need to bring another telephone at Fateh General Store to be used as P.C.O. The abovesaid sanctioned P.C.O. /telephone was disconnected in June, 1994 after the installation of Pay Cards Telephone. The Zonal Manager TF Pay Phones, Multan, wrote a letter on 24‑9‑1994 to the respondent No.1 (Annexure R/6) wherein it urged that pay cards phones had been installed on different places in Bahawalpur", but we have come to know that there are some people who are using their personal phones as EDPCOs and charge extra charges from public which is unauthorised and not in the favour of P.T.C." This letter also referred to some such phone numbers and addresses at which these telephones were being misused. This letter does not contain the petitioner's telephone number and yet on the same day, petitioner's telephone was disconnected i.e. 24‑9‑1994. Strangely enough, this letter also refers to Telephone No.6723, the previous sanctioned P.C.O. at Fateh General Store which had been disconnected as far back as in June, 1994, due to which it is contended that insistence of the Zonal Manager is also not based on any proper enquiry and investigation as previously, the Zonal Manager had written a letter to respondent No. l on 18‑8‑1994 and in which also abovesaid number of already disconnected telephone was also mentioned as being used as P.C.O.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that on the letter dated 18‑8‑1994 (Annexure R/ 1) referred to above, sent by the Zonal Manager, the respondent No. l directed the Assistant Engineer Phones/Incharge Sectional Staff to personally check and send his enquiry report by 28‑8‑1994 positively. The abovesaid letter dated 18‑8‑1994 makes a reference to the petitioner's telephone number as well as the already disconnected P.C.O. (6723) and these telephone numbers and 2/3 other telephone numbers are written by hand whereas the rest of the telephone numbers in the Zonal Manager's letter are typed and the possibility cannot be ruled out that the petitioner has been victimised just because there was some report against Fateh General Store which is being run by petitioner's husband and the telephone installed at Fateh General Store has also been disconnected. The respondents have not been able to disclose any positive report or any proper enquiry ever having been conducted against the petitioner to justify the action of disconnection of petitioner's private telephone number. As such, I accept this petition and direct the respondents to immediately restore petitioner's private telephone No.7580. A.A./R‑191/L Petition accepted.