R ANNAMALAI Vs. ARBITRATOR AND DIVISIONAL ENGINEER MAINTENANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed against the Award of the Arbitrator dated 19.07.1999 rejecting the complaint made by the petitioners alleging that there was an excess billing in respect of the petitioner's phone numbers 323685 and 320839, Thoothukudi.

(2.) IT is stated in the affidavit that the original petitioner (R.Annamalai) was a partner in the A.S.K. Ramiah Nadar Firm, which is carrying manufacturing and trading in coconut oil at No.18 and 18A, Palayamkottai Road, Thoothukudi. The original petitioner had telephone number 320839 for his business and the other telephone number 323685 at his residence. The petitioner when he was given a bill which did not commensurate with the normal calls made by him, sent a legal notice. Thereafter he filed a suit in the District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi in O.S.No.536 of 1996. He also filed subsequently seven more suits in the very same Court resisting payment of the telephone bills. Subsequently he withdrew the suits.

(3.) THE petitioner's contention was two fold and they are as follows:- a) THEre was a large scale misuse of telephone facility by making ISD calls in Thoothukudi Town. Even the District Collectorate was not spared. A complaint was made by the P.A. to the District Collector and a First Information Report was registered in the Police Station North, Thoothukudi in Cr.No.841 of 1998. THErefore when there is a wide spread complaints about misuse, the Arbitrator should have obtained a report on the outcome of the investigation which would have helped the case of the petitioner. b) He secondly submitted that the Arbitrator having found that the guidelines were not followed by the Officers, he should have granted relief to the petitioner. THE fact that the Arbitrator had given an unsolicitous advice that ISD locking facility should have been used by the petitioner, however that cannot be put against him.