ITTYARAH Vs. SIMON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 2 are the revision petitioners. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the Memo 3467/41 dated 23-4-1985 issued by the second defendant (District Manager, Telephones, Ernakulam) is null and void and that Kerala Optical Works is the real subscriber of Telephone No. 34647 of the Ernakulam Telephone Exchange and for a consequential order of injunction to restrain the second defendant from disconnecting the telephone on the application of the first defendant. First defendant contended inter alia that jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in view of the alternative remedy provided under S.7B of the Telegraph Act.

(2.) The question for consideration is whether in a suit where rival claims are made for telephone by the parties reference to arbitration under S.7B of the Telegraph Act is mandatory. Contention of the plaintiff is that S.7B has no application as the dispute over the telephone is between the plaintiff and the defendant and not with the Telegraph authority. S.7B of the Telegraph Act reads:

(3.) Counsel for defendants 1 and 3 relied on AIR 1981 Orissa 11, AIR 1977 Orissa 48 and AIR 1982 Delhi 111 and contended that expression "any dispute concerning any telephone line, appliance or apparatus" takes within its sweep all kinds of disputes which relate to telephone line, apparatus or appliance and so even in a case where rival claims are made Court has no option but to resort to arbitration under S.7B of the Act. The above decisions have no application to the present case where rival claims are made for the telephone and where the Telegraph authority has no significant role to play. But disputes of wide amplitude relating to the functioning and working of the telephone line, apparatus or appliance between the subscriber and telegraph authority would come within the ambit of S.7B. The legislative intention of S.7B is that the disputes relating to telephone lines, appliances or apparatus between the subscriber and the telegraph authority should be arbitrated upon. It cannot even be remotely held that in a suit where rival claims are made over a telephone line arbitration is contemplated under S.7B of the Act.