LAXMANBHAI B CHELANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 14.7.1999 (Annexure "I" to the petition) rejecting the petitioner's application for referring the dispute against telephone bills to arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

(2.) The petitioner is a telephone subscriber having telephone Nos. 54044 and 56544. The petitioner received telephone bill for the month of December, 1997 for an amount of Rs.24,167.00 in respect of telephone No. 54044 and also bill for the month of November, 1997 for an amount of Rs.7,319/- in respect of telephone No. 56544. The petitioner lodged complaint against the said bills as being excessive. The respondents ultimately called upon the petitioner to pay Rs.29,609.00 by 20.2.1998 or else face disconnection of telephones. The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 43/98 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Palanpur for challenging the aforesaid bills and also prayed for temporary injunction against disconnection. In the said suit, the telecom department filed an application Exh. 52 praying that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act and that, therefore, the issue regarding jurisdiction may be raised as a preliminary issue. In view of the above purshis, the petitioner filed application Exh. 69 on 19.6.1999 for permission to withdraw the suit with a view to filing an application for raising the dispute before the arbitrator. Accordingly, the suit was permitted to be withdrawn on 3.7.1999. The petitioner thereafter made an application dated 9.7.1999 before the Telecom District Manager, Palanpur for referring the dispute before the arbitrator-the dispute regarding telephone Nos. 54044 and 56544 in respect of the bills for the months of November, December, 1997 and January, 1998. However, by the impugned reply dated 14.7.1999, the Accounts Officer of the General Manager, Telecom District, Palanpur rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that there was no dispute concerning the apparatus or appliance. It is the aforesaid communication which is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) At the hearing of this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 3 has erred in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in him as the dispute raised by the petitioner pertains to excessive bills in respect of the two telephone numbers for which the lines as well as the instruments were supplied by the department. The learned counsel has further relied on the following decisions :-