KALAWWATI AGGARWAL Vs. CHAIRMAN MTNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited raised two bills dated 1/4/1993 and 1/6/1993 for Rs. 59,219.40 and Rs. 34,747.50 respectively against the peti- tioner in respect of telephone No. 2918258. The petitioner raised a dispute that the bills were excessive. The dispute was referred to the arbitration of Mr. Mukesh Mathur, G.M. (T.R.) Pb. Circle, Chandigarh. On September 14, 1997 after hearing the parties, the arbitrator passed an award rejecting the claim of the petitioner. While doing so he observed as follows :-

(2.) It is clear that the Arbitrator came to the con- clusion that STD was not barred during the period of bills. He was also of the view that the fortnightly meter reading during the disputed period does not show any abnormality and as per the billing status the number of STD calls have been made from the telephone in question during the billing periods of the aforesaid bills. This court while examining the award of the arbitrator does not sit as a court of appeal. The arbitrator is the sole judge of facts. Adequacy or sufficiency of evidence is not a matter for the court. So long as the finding of the arbitrator is based on some evidence it does not warrant any interference. Judicial review generally speaking is not directed against the decision making process. It is basically meant to ensure that the individual receives a fair hearing. Interference is warranted when the decision is an outrageous defiance of logic or is illegal, irrational or perverse. This is not the case here. Writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution can set aside an award of an arbitrator rendered under section 7B of the Indian Telegrah Act if it finds (1) an error apparent on the face of the award, or (2) the award is based on non-existent facts, or (3) the arbitrator has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him, or (4) the award is based on extraneous grounds. The award does not suffer from any of the above infirmities.

(3.) In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed.