(1.) This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner seeks quashing of the award of the arbitrator dated May 20, 1996 passed under section 7B of the Telegraph Act, 1885. The dispute between the parties pertains to two telephone bills dated January 1, 1994 and March 1, 1994 relating to telephone No. 650230 (changed to 6960230 subsequently) installed at the premises of the petitioner, being premises No. C-6/34, Safdarjung Development Area, II Floor, New Delhi. While telephone bill dated January 1, 1994 was for a sum of Rs.19,370.00 for 14124 calls, the bill dated March 1, 1994 was for a sum of Rs.1,123,706.00 for 88650 calls. The petitioner, who is the proprietor of Patram Industries, feeling aggrieved of the two bills on the ground of the same being inflated, filed a petition before the trial court under section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Along with the petition under section 20, the petitioner moved an application for an ad interim relief for restraining the respondents from disconnecting his telephones. The trial court by its order dated February 22, 1995 directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000.00 with the respondents pending the final disposal of the case as a condition precedent for restraining the respondents from disconnecting the telephones of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order of the trial court by means of a civil revision petition, being No.223/95, before this Court. By order dated March 20, 1995 this court directed the matter to be referred to an arbitrator under section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Central Government, on March 25, 1995, appointed Shri R.P.Sharma, Chief Accounts Officer TR (Central), as Arbitrator for determination of the disputes. Thereupon the petitioner filed a statement of claim before the arbitrator in which it was, inter alia, submitted that the petitioner had the facility of S.T.D. but his bills over a long period had not gone beyond Rs.5,000.00 . It was also pointed out that average bill calculated on the basis of seven billing cycles upto the billing cycle 1.11.1993 came to Rs.1,703.00 P.M. The petitioner also alleged misuser of his telephone by the employees of the department. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had applied for disconnection of STD facility on January 3, 1994, but the S.T.D. was disconnected only on January 21, 1994 after a delay of eighteen days. As a consequence, the petitioner raised the plea that had the action for disconnection of the STD been taken immediately the misuse resulting in excess metering could have been avoided. The arbitrator after hearing both the sides did not interfere with the bill dated January 1, 1994 but in so far as the bill dated March 1, 1994 is concerned, the arbitrator gave rebate of 55000 calls to the petitioner. The arbitrator, while holding so, observed as follows :- " Having carefully considered the material on record and merit of the case and after giving careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties, considering possibility of misuser/malfuntioning of telephone due to some un-noticed technical fault/department delay in disconnection of STD facility, giving weightage to oral deposition of the subscriber and keeping in view the principle of natural justice, I, R.P. Sharma as sole arbitrator in the above mentioned dispute hereby give an award as under:- I.S.No. Bill Date Gross Calls charged Rebate in calls 1. 1-1-94 14124 NIL 2. 1-3-94 88650 55000 II. Cost towards litigation/arbitration is to be borne by the respective parties. III. No interest on out-standing amount is to be allowed/charged. IV. No other benefit, whatsoever, is to be claimed/extended by claimant/respondent, on account of this award. V. The cost of stamp paper, i.e. Rs.75.00 is borne by the respondent."
(2.) As is evident from above, the arbitrator gave the award after considering the arguments advanced by the parties and after considering the following possibilities :-
(3.) It is well settled that this Court while examining the award of an arbitrator does not sit as a court of appeal. The arbitrator is the sole judge of facts. It is also an established principle that judicial review is not directed against the decision making process but is basically meant to ensure that the parties to the dispute receive a fair hearing. It cannot be disputed that the arbitrator heard the parties and considered the material on record. He also gave substantial relief to the petitioner with regard to the bill dated March 1, 1994. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the award does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the award. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.