UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRESIDENT TELECOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DELAY condoned. Rule issued forthwith and taken up for consideration with the consent of the parties. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.

(2.) THE important question, which poses consideration in this revision is whether the matter about disconnection of the telephone on the ground of emergency under Rule 422 of the Indian Telegraph Rules framed under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, should be referred to the arbitrator under section 7-B of the said Act. The question arises as follows. The respondent No. 2 is the subscriber of Telephone No. 203 under Amalner Exchange. The said telephone had been installed at the residence of respondent No. 2 and he was paying the necessary charges from time to time. It seems, that the respondent No. 1 has been joined in its representative capacity. It is the Telecom Users Association, Amalner, represented through is President, Shri Bhailal Shah, on 17th December, 1989, at about 8. 55 a. m. Vinodkumar, son of Respondent No. 2 had booked a call for Parola on the above Telephone No. 203. Vinodkumar was on line at about 9. 00 a. m. and was possibly talking on the telephone to the person to whom the call was booked. However, when his conversation was going on he noticed that his talk was being intercepted by somebody at above Amalner Telephone Exchange. Vinodkumar, therefore, asked the operator about the said obstruction and it is to be noticed that on Hedau was on duty at the said Exchange as Supervisor. The allegations are that the said Supervisor abused Vinodkumar when he made enquiry about the disturbance and interception. Vinodkumar, therefore, approached the Association and then lodged a complaint against the operator. However, the minoter Mr. Badgujar, who was incharge at the Exchange refused to accept the complaint. Vinodkumar, therefore, contacted the District Engineer Telecom, Jalgaon, now petitioner No. 2 and made the complaint about the said disturbance. He was assured that the complaint would be looked into, but is was gathered that no cognizance was taken by any of the concerned authorities about the complaint of said Vinodkumar. He therefore, approached the Police Station with the intent to lodge complaint against the petitioner. The Police Officers at Amalner tried to bring about the reconciliation, but did not succeed in the same. The complaint was lodged also to the Director Telecommunications at Nashik on 19-9-1989, but the same went unheeded. On the other hand, on 18th September, 1989 in the mid-night Telephone No. 203 was disconnected for no obvious reason. On the next day, therefore, petitioner No. 3 was contacted in connected with dis-connection and it was asked as to why notice under Rule 422 of the rules was not issued to him. On these allegations, the respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No. 206 of 1989, seeking reconnection of the telephone.

(3.) THE present petitioner who are the defendants, filed the written statement at Ex. 32 and contended that Vinodkumar abused the operator and came down with couple of persons at the Exchange and started abusing the employees present. Those persons entered the switch room, which is prohibited area. They were about to assault the employees at the Exchange. These persons also searched for the concerned operator, but the Junior Engineer, Beed, pacified Vinodkumar and took them out of the switch room. In consequences, the atmosphere at the Exchange had become tense. All the members of the staff felt unsecured in the face of aggressive postures adopted by Vinodkumar and others. The members of the staff threatened to go on strike and her arose emergency, which prompted the Divisional Engineer to disconnect the phone. However, the notice was given to the respondent No. 2 where in it was stated that the respondents and other should behave properly. On these grounds, the petitioners contended that the disconnection was fully justified. However, they also pleaded that this is a dispute, which should be referred to the arbitrator under section 7-B of the Act and accordingly, the suit should be stayed. The Court was pleased to framed preliminary issue at Ex. 41, but on consideration on the claims on merit of both the parties, the Court found that looking to the circumstances, which arose at the time of the incident, the matter could not be referred to the arbitrator and the Civil Court was competent to decide that matter. Being aggrieved by this order, declining reference to arbitrator under section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, the petitioners/original defendants have preferred this revision.