V.N. DAMANI Vs. THE ARBITRATOR, DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (ESP-I), CHENNAI TELEPHONES, KUSH KUMAR ROAD, CHENNAI AND THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EAST, CHENNAI TELEPHONES, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner praying for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to Arbitration No.Arb/ESP/2/1999 -200 dated 11/5/1999 on the file of the Arbitrator, Divisional Engineer (ESP -I), Chennai Telephones and to quash the same, and forbear the Deputy General Manager (North East), Chennai Telephones, Chennai from demanding the petitioner to pay the Bill dated 7/2/1990 in respect of the Telephone No. 585678 (Old No.30678) now working under No.4335009.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that though he had the STD facility, the normal working of the telephone is minimal; that a heavy bill was presented and a demand was made for Rs.18,706/ - dated 7/12/1989, for which the above writ petition was filed; that subsequent to the disputed bill dated 7/12/1989, there was another bill dated 7/2/1990 demanding a sum of Rs.10,748/ -, as against the said bill, he had filed another W.P.No.2638 of 1990 on the file of this Court.

(3.) IT is further submitted that the petitioner has no business dealings at Tirunelveli and no other personal contact at Tirunelveli to a subscriber having the telephone numbers 0462 - 73044, 44135 and 52279051540; that then he wrote a letter to the Department to cut off the STD facility, for which the respondent informed the petitioner by their letter dated 12/4/1990 to the effect that the STD facility had been withdrawn; that eventhough after the disconnection of the STD facility, the telephone bill dated 7/2/1990 was excessive and made for the calls not utilised by the petitioner, he filed a W.P. No. 2638 of 1990 on the file of this Court and this Court by an order dated 28/7/1998 referred the matter for arbitration, and accordingly the Divisional Engineer (ESP.I) Chennai Telephones had been appointed as an Arbitrator; that the learned Arbitrator after issue of notice to both the parties, conducted arbitral proceedings; that however the learned Arbitrator, by an award dated 11/5/1999 dismissed the arbitration petition and even went to the extent of directing the petitioner to settle the amount immediately for the disputed bill and hence the above writ petition.