S A RATHINASWAMY NADAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in his affidavit, filed in support of this writ petition, has averred that he is the subscriber of two telephones at Madras bearing Telephone Nos. 31347 and 30997 and two other telephones at Delhi bearing Telephone Nos. 516923 and 516075. It is stated by the respondents that there were arrears of rent for the period 11-8-1978 to 31-3-1979 with regard to the two telephones at Delhi. THE petitioner is disputing the correctness of the amount claimed and has stated that there are overbilling for these periods. As the dispute has arisen, the petitioner wrote a letter to respondents to refer the matter for arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. While so, the third respondent, by its impugned order dated 3.7.1985 intimated the petitioner as hereunder: ?It has been intimated by the Accounts Officer (A/Cell), Delhi Telephones that a sum of Rs. 41,896-00 is outstanding in respect of Delhi phone Nos. 516923 and 516075 which were provided to you at No. 20/A Ram Nagar, New Delhi-55. You are, therefore, requested to settle the same on or before 10.7.85, failing which your working telephone Nos. 31347 and 30997 in Madras will be disconnected under Indian Telegraph Rule 443 without further notice. It is hoped that you would settle the dues within due date to avoid further action to enforce recovery of Government dues with costs?. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is infirmity in the impugned order passed by the third respondent in invoking Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rule 1951, when there is a dispute with regard to the quantum of payment demanded and overbilling and the petitioner has requested the authorities concerned to refer the matter under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to arbitration. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submits that Indian Telegraph Rule 443 can be invoked by the respondent at any stage and even after the request made by the petitioner to refer the matter for arbitration under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that Rule 443 can be invoked even when a request has been made by the petitioner to refer the dispute for arbitration. THEre is no dispute that under Rule 443 of the Act, the respondent has got power to disconnect any phone throughout India for non-payment of any one of the telephone or telegraphic or any other appliances. But the point for consideration in this case is that when once a dispute has arisen and the petitioner has requested the concerned authorities to refer the dispute for determination by arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 whether it is open to the respondent to invoke Rule 443. I am of the view that it is not open to the respondent to invoke Rule 443 of the Telegraph Rule when a request is made by the subscriber of the telephone to refer the dispute to arbitration in terms of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and in effect it will amountunt to recovery of the disputed amount even before the dispute adjudicated by the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings and even before the exact amount due is determined by the arbitrator. In effect it will defeat very purpose of arbitration. In view of the above infirmity, the impugned order of the third respondent is set aside and quashed.

(2.) IT is open to the petitioner to take steps to pursue his remedy for arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the respondent would be entitled to invoke Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules to recover the amounts due or to disconnect any telephone within the Union of India. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.