SURJIT SINGH versus MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 683 · Decided: 21-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 683 
SURJIT SINGH 
A 
v. 
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5354 of 2002) 
APRIL 21, 2008 
B 
(H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.) 
Indian . Telegraph Rules; Rr. 2(PP) and 443: 
Disconnection of Telephone - Mahanagar Telephone 
Nigam Ltd. disconnecting telephone lines in the name of c 
husband for non-payment of dues of telephone line in the 
name of wife - Correctness of- Held: Wife of the appellant is 
a house-wife having no independent source of income and, 
thus, economically dependent on him -
Telephone line of 
relative, on whom subscriber is economically dependent, can D 
be disconnected on ground of non-payment of telephone bill 
by the nominal subscriber - Intention of the legislature in 
framing r. 443 was that payment of the telephone bills should 
be made promptly - Rule 443 has to be construed in the 
context in which it was made and the purpose and object which 
E 
it has to achieve - A literal interpretation of the rule would 
frustrate its object - Hence, a purposive construction of the 
rule in question has to be adopted - Construing so, authorities 
were right in disconnecting telephone line of the appellant at 
his residence and at his business premises for non-payment F 
... 
of dues in the name of his dependent wife - Interpretation of 
Statutes - Mimansa Rules of Interpretation - Linga/Lakshna 
principle - Applicability of 
Words and Phrases: 
'Subscriber' - Meaning of in the context of r.2(PP) of the G 
Indian Telegraph Rules . 
• 
Respondent disconnected two telephone lines of the 
appellant, one at his residence and the other at his 
683 
H 
684 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 
A business premises for non-payment of arrears of 
telephone dues in connection with the telephone line in 
the name of his wife. Challenging the order of the 
authorities, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High 
Court, which was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High 
B Court. Appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed by the 
Division Bench of the High Court. Hence, the present 
appeal. 
Appellant contended that in terms of Rule 443 the 
Indian Telegraph Rules, telephone lines in his name could 
C not have been disconnected because of non-payment of 
dues in respect of the telephone line in the name of his 
wife. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1 Wife of the appellant is a housewife, who 
is living with him at his residential premises. It has not 
been alleged that she has an independent source of 
income by doing some business or by some service etc. 
In these circumstances, it can be inferred that the payment 
E of the bill of the telephone line in the name of his wife was 
being made by the appellant himself since his wife has 
no independent source of income and is economically 
dependent on him. (Para - 10) [690-8, C, DJ 
1.2 In the case of a person who is economically 
F dependent on another who is paying his telephone bills, 
the telephone line in the name of such other relative on 
whom the subscriber is dependent can be disconnected 
for non-payment of the telephone bills of the nominal 
subscriber. (Para -19) [693-A, B, CJ 
G 
: I 
2.1 It is true that on a literal interpretation of r. 443 of 
the Indian Telegraph Rules, the contention of counsel for 
the appellant would have to be accepted. However, in this 
case, the literal rule has neit to be adopted, because this 
Court has to see the intention of the rule. The intention 
• 
SURJIT SINGH v. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE 
685 
NIGAM LTD. 
obviously was that payment of telephone dues should A 
be made promptly, otherwise the telephone department 
will suffer. This Court, therefore, to take an interpretation 
which effectuates and furthers the intention of r. 443, i.e. 
the telephone bills should be paid in time. (Para - 21) 
[693-D, E] 
B 
2.2 In the case of a wife who is a housewife and is 
economically dependent on her husband, obviously the 
telephone bills in connection with the telephone line in 
her name are being paid by her husband and not by 
herself. Hence, a purposive construction has to be C 
adopted in this case and not to go by the literal rule of 
interpretation. (Para - 22) [693-F] 
2.3 No doubt, ordinarily the literal rule should be 
applied while interpreting a statute or statutory rule, but 0 
the literal rule is not always the only rule of interpretation 
of a provision in a statute, and in exceptional cases the 
literal rule can be departed from. It follows that to interpret 
a statu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.