JUTEX Vs. TELECOM DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned Counsel for rule. Accordingly, rule is made to be heard forthwith.

(2.) PETITIONER is a partnership firm and was allotted telephone bearing No. 3299 at Vasco da Gama. The petitioner had instituted Writ Petition No. 163 of 1992 in this Court for an appropriate writ directing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to refer the dispute of excessive billing for the period between 16th of August, 1991 and 15th of October, 1991 for an amount of Rs. 29,941 under section 78 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to Statutory Arbitration. Rule was made absolute in that writ petition by the order dated 24th of April, 1992. Based upon the direction of this Court, respondent No. 3 who is the Telecom District Manager at Kolhapur, was appointed as the Arbitrator by the Union of India. By a communication dated 8th of June, 1992 the 3rd respondent the Arbitrator while forwarding a copy of minutes of proceedings held on 5th of June, 1992, called upon the petitioner to intimate to him if there is new evidence to be adduced in the matter in respect of the dispute raised. Accordingly the petitioner in terms of the communication dated 8th of June, 1992, forwarded some additional evidence through Elbee Courier Services Limited to the officer of the Arbitrator on 16th of June, 1992.

(3.) THE next grievance of the petitioner is that after making of the award the Arbitrator made a corrigendum to the award and by his communiciation dated 3rd of October, 1992 informed the petitioner regarding the corrected award. This was done behind the back of the petitioner inasmuch as no notice was given to the petitioner that the award earlier made dated 16th of June, 1992 was required to be corrected.