K N ACHUTHAN PILLAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the subscriber of Telephone No. 85-5350 of Kalamassery Telephone Exchange. He received Ext. P1 letter dated 26-6-1987 in which the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that there was unauthorised use of the telephone by providing an external extension and that it was without the knowledge of the telephone Department. He was therefore called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 4,400/- towards installation of two external extensions (the amount consists of Rs. 2,800/- towards rent for two external extensions and Rs. 1,600/- towards installation charges of the extension). The petitioner sent a reply stating that he has not provided any extension whatsoever and that he was not in need for such external extensions. Later petitioner received a telephone bill (Ext. P3) for Rs. 4,745/-, which includes Rs. 4,400/- claimed in the earlier letter. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court with this Original petition for quashing Exts. P1 and P3.

(2.) It is obvious that the petitioner has disputed the stand of the Department that the petitioner has provided external extensions to Telephone No. 85-5350. The said dispute arose as early as 4-7-1987, as could be seen from Ext. P2. It is not proper that the petitioner should suffer consequences of non payment of the said sum until the said dispute is resolved.

(3.) S.7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short 'the Act') provides a machinery and a forum for resolving at least certain types of disputes between the subscriber and the telegraph authorities. Smt. Rosamma, learned counsel representing the senior Central Government standing counsel contended that S.7-B cannot take in a dispute of the nature involved in this case. The learned counsel referred me to two decisions in support of her contention. (1) In Raghubar Dayal Kanadia v. Union of lndia (AIR 1970 All. 143) and the other in Om Oil and Oilseeds Exchange Ltd. v. Union of lndia ( AIR 1977 Del. 132 ). In the first mentioned decision, a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court considered the question whether the dispute relating to actual reading of meter which involves questions as to whether meter had been correctly and honestly read should be determined by arbitration. The learned Judge held that such a dispute is outside the purview of S.7-6(1) of the Act. In the second mentioned decision, the single Judge of the Delhi High Court, did not in fact hold that certain kinds of disputes would go outside the scope of S.7-B of the Act. On the other hand, the observations made by the learned Judge indicate that S.7-B provides a remedy to a subscriber. But in the special circumstances narrated on the facts of the said case, the learned Judge was not inclined to direct the party concerned to avail S.7-B. In Raghubar Dayal Kanadia's case, the scope of S.7-B was held to be narrow.