V N DAMANI Vs. ARBITRATOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 1. 3. 2002 in W. P. No. 11386 of 1999, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein and upholding the award of the first respondent dated 11. 5. 1999, wherein the arbitration petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are that the appellant was the subscriber to telephone No. 30678, which was subsequently changed to 585678. The said telephone connection was originally installed at 122 (now 357) Mind Street and now shifted at no. 13, Rangan Street, T. Nager, Chennai-17 with telephone no. 4335009. According to the appellant, he had STD facility and until bill dated 7. 8. 1989, the bill amount was less than rs. 2,600/- for two months and on 7. 12. 1989, a bill was received by the appellant for a sum of Rs. 18,706/ -. The said bill was challenged by the appellant in W. P. No. 331 of 1990 and this Court directed the appellant to go for arbitration. Again by bill dated 7. 2. 1990 appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,748/- and the same was also challenged in W. P. No. 2638 of 1990, which was also directed to be decided in arbitration proceeding.

(3.) THEREAFTER, according to the appellant, he made an arbitration claim before the first respondent, who passed an award on 11. 5. 1999 dismissing the arbitration claim petition filed by the appellant. The said order was challenged in W. P. No. 11386 of 1999 by contending that in spite of two telephone numbers given by the appellant through which STD calls were received, the department failed to verify the same and prove the tampering of telephone number of the appellant by somebody else and due to tampering only huge amount is demanded from the appellant in the said bills. According to the appellant, the enquiry conducted on 24. 3. 1999 was improperly conducted and the appellant's claim should have been verified by the Vigilance cell and even after the withdrawal of STD facility by the appellant, subsequent bills also showed the usage of STD facility and the same was not considered by the first respondent. Hence the award of the first respondent is sought to be quashed in the writ petition.