1. MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.---By this Constitutional petition, the petitioner Irfan Ali has sought the following reliefs:-- "(i) To declare that the act of the respondents in disconnection of the Telephone No,30582 of the petitioner on 18-8-2000 which is installed in Plot No,17, situated at New Sabzi Mandi, Truck Stand, Shikarpur Road, Sukkur, is illegal, void ab initio, beyond their competency, without jurisdiction, colourable, arbitrary, being without any arrears outstanding against the petitioner and without any show-cause notice to the petitioner and as such their act in disconnection of the petitioner's telephone is without lawful authority and justification and hence not sustainable at law.
(ii) To direct the respondents under mandamus process of law to restore the telephone connection of the petitioner bearing No,30582 forthwith, as the petitioner is suffering heavy recurring loss in his business due to disconnection of the telephone of the petitioner without any lawful justification.
(iii) To grant any other relief by way of rule, writ or order, as is deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice and equity." The facts as disclosed in the petition by the petitioner. Irfan are that he is a law-abiding citizen of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and earning his livelihood by running transport business styled as "Pak Khilji Goods Transport Company" having its office at Sabzi Mandi, Truck Stand, Shikarpur Road, Sukkur. The petitioner is subscriber of Telephone No,30582 and the same is installed in the Plot No,17, Sabzi Mandi, Truck Stand, Shikarpur Road, Sukkur. The telephone is in the name of the petitioner. The Telephone No,30582 is being used by the petitioner for the purpose of his business as well as to facilitate the general public for the purpose of loading and unloading of the goods through his transport company. The petitioner is not indebted to the respondents in respect of his Telephone No,30582. The respondents in spite of that, without any show-cause notice disconnected the telephone No,30582 of petitioner on 18th August, 2000. It is further stated that action of the respondent No,3 disconnecting the telephone of the petitioner without any notice is mala fide, colourable, arbitrary and in excess of authority as the petitioner is not in arrears in respect of his Telephone No,30582. He paid all the telephone bills which were sent to him by the respondents. It is averred that petitioner approached respondent No,3 for restoration of his telephone connection bearing No,30582 but no heed was paid to it. He was informed by the respondent No,3 that telephone dues in respect of Telephone No,60923 are outstanding against Muazim & Co.
2. Owned by one Riaz Bakhsh whose office is also, situated at New Sabzi Mandi, Truck Stand, Shikarpur Road, Sukkur, therefore his Telephone No,30582 has been disconnected.
3. Persuant to the notice the respondents 2 and 3 filed parawise comments wherein they have admitted that the Telephone No,30582 was installed in the name of the petitioner. Muazim Ali is brother of the petitioner and dues of PTCL are outstanding against him. The petitioner being a blood relation is responsible and he has to pay the outstanding amount of the PTCL. It is averred that notice under section 7-A of Telegraph Act, 1885 was issued to the petitioner whereby he was informed that dues of telephone bearing No,60923 are outstanding against his brother Muazim Ali and if the petitioner failed to pay the dues of Muazim Ali his telephone connection will be disconnected. With the result Muazim Ali applied for instalments and he deposited Rs,30,000 in N.A.B. Account No,2340. We have heard Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Khan Durrani, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Abdul Sattar R. Khokhar, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents and perused the material placed on record.
4. The perusal of the record shows that the respondents have admitted in their parawise comments that no dues in respect of Telephone No,30582 were/are outstanding against the petitioner. The amount if any was due, it was in respect of Telephone No,60923 against Muazim Ali who was running his business separately from the petitioner. Merely the said Muazim Ali is brother of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be saddled with the responsibility or any illegal act committed by his brother or any of his relative because of blood tie. It is not the case of the respondents that Muazim Ali is business partner of Irfan Ali. This fact is evident from the parawise comments filed by the respondents. Everybody is responsible for his own acts, deeds or misdeeds. The upshot of the above discussion is that the action taken by the respondents was arbitrary and in excess of their authority. Consequently the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. The petition stands disposed of alongwith listed application with no order as to costs.