A RAGHAVAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P3 order passed by the first respondent appointing third respondent as the arbitrator to decide the dispute under S.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. Third respondent is Assistant General Manager (Engg.) in the office of the General Manager (Planning), Telecommunications, Thiruvananthapuram.

(2.) Petitioner submits third respondent being an officer of the Telephone Department is disabled from acting as Arbitrator. From past experience, counsel for petitioner submits if a party wants to examine an officer of the telephone department, Arbitrator (officer of Department) would not allow him to examine the officer. Similarly Arbitrator would accept documents produced by the department without even giving a copy thereof to the parties. Further, according to petitioner, third respondent has no knowledge of law, and he would not follow the well known principles of natural justice before rendering his decision. In the said circumstances, petitioner suggested three names to be appointed as Arbitrator. According to petitioner, they are fit enough to be considered for appointment as Arbitrators. The names of those persons are given by the petitioner in Ext. P2 representation.

(3.) S.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act is extracted below: