The petitioner has disputed the correctness of Ext.P9 bill raised by the respondents stating that there is some excess remittance and hence seeks for refund of the same, in view of the surrender of the telephone connection and the equipments provided by the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there is some mis-calculation on the part of the respondents and in spite of satisfaction of the due amount by the petitioner then and there, the same was not properly given credit to and hence the mistake. As per Ext.P9 dated 10.01.2014 issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, the amount sought to be realised is ₹ 3961/-, whereas the amount shown by the BSNL in Ext.P8 issued on a subsequent date i.e., 23.05.2014 is ₹3,107/-. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 31.07.2014 supplemented by an additional counter affidavit dated 22.08.2014.
3. Heard both sides in detail.
W.P.C. No. 17120 of 2014 -2-
4. Various bills issued and particulars of remittance made by the petitioner are referred to in the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Copies of the relevant bills have been produced as Exts. R3(a) to R3(g). On issuance of periodical bills showing the outstanding arrears and remittances made, credit has been given to the amount already paid by the petitioner and only the balance amount was required to be satisfied. Exts.R3(a) to R3(g) bills cover the entire period from 1.3.2012 to 8.09.2012.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the telephone was disconnected on 11.07.2012 and the petitioner surrendered the equipment including the Broadband connection on 30.07.2012 and as such, there could not have been any further liability, after the said date. The factual position is narrated in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the additional counter affdavit filed by the 3rd respondent, which reads as follows:
“8. The petitioner was issued bill dated 06.09.2012 for the bill period 01.08.2012 to 31.08.2012. The previous balance was Rs. 3190.80 and the current bill amount was Rs. 192.96. The total outstanding amount was Rs. 3384/- which was to be paid on or before 27.09.2012. The copy of W.P.C. No. 17120 of 2014 -3-
the bill dated 06.09.2012 is produced for reference and marked as Exhibit R3(F).
9. Since the petitioner failed to pay the arrears of bills, the petitioner's telephone connection was disconnected (only the outgoing calls were barred) with effect from 11.07.2012. The petitioner by Exhibit P6 dated 30.07.2012 requested for closure of the telephone including Broad band. The telephone and Broad band facility were permanently closed on 08.08.2012. Even though petitioner had requested this respondent for closure of the petitioner's telephone and Broad band facility, he had not returned the equipment till 24.08.2012.”
No reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to rebut the version of the respondents as given in the additional counter affidavit.
6. After giving credit to the amount already satisfied by the petitioner, the balance amount to be cleared by the petitioner is ₹ 1,759/- plus such other charges as mentioned in paragraph 11 of the additional counter affidavit, which reads as follows:
“11. From the documents produced as Exhibit R3(A) to R3(G) it is very clear that the total outstanding amount is Rs. 4733/- and after adjusting the deposit of Rs. 1625.- and deducting the modem charges of Rs. 1348/-, the balance outstanding amount is Rs.1759/-. The petitioner is therefore liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1759/- and W.P.C. No. 17120 of 2014 -4-
interest @ 18% from 06.04.2012 i.e., from the date of issue of bill outstanding and Revenue Recovery Commission charges @ 5%.”
After hearing both the sides, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the matter. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. However, the petitioner is given a further time of 'two weeks' to clear the liability as mentioned above, failing which the Revenue Recovery proceedings will continue.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-