T JAYALAKSHMI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER DEPT OF TELECOMMUNICATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four writ petitions can be disposed of by this common judgment, as the issue involved in all these writ petitions one and the same.

(2.) The petitioners are running Public Telephone Booths, allotted by the first respondent, General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Visakhapatnam, and when the second respondent the Accounts Officer, billed their telephone calls made from the Booths run by the petitioners, they have disputed the billed amount and for non-payment of the bills, their phones were disconnected and the petitioners and others filed Writ Petition No. 11208 of 1991 which was disposed of by this Court on 12.9.1991 directing the respondents to restore the telephone connection on deposit of l/8th of the claimed amount and thereafter directed the petitioner to deposit further l/8th amount demanded and the respondents were further directed to issue notice relating to arrears giving full particulars of calls and in case petitioner disputes the amount,, the matter had to be referred to Arbitrator under Section 7(B) of the Telegraph Act (for brevity the Act). Therefore, invoking the power contemplated under Section 7(B) of the Act, Arbitrator - third respondent was appointed and the Arbitrator entered appearance and after a detailed enquiry into the matter, passed the awards bearing No.X/ ARB/93/VM-60186 dated 28.2.1995; X/ ARB/93/VM-50965 dated 23.2.1995; X/ ARB/93/VM-7882 dated 12.2.1995 and X/ ARB/93/VM-7990 dated 20.2.1995 respectively. Questioning the above said award, the present writ petitions are filed, contending that the Arbitrator himself has held that the Accounts Officer did not produce the full particulars of the calls as directed by the Court, there was a gulf of difference between the amounts demanded and the meter reading; that the Arbitrator found that the Accounts Officer could not specify that the equipment is working already during the strike period, that the Arbitrator found that correct particulars of the calls were not furnished and there was a gulf of difference between the amounts demanded and the meter reading and that for the period from April, 1990 to April, 1991, the Arbitrator held that 50% of the total outstanding as arrived by him was waived and the balance 50% was to be paid within 15 days from the date of receipt of the award. Therefore, for all these reasons the awards of the Arbitrator are illegal and is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the award.

(3.) For better appreciation of the contentions raised by the Counsel for the petitioners, let us have a glance of Section 7(B) of the Act. "... Arbitration of Disputes :(I) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the lien, appliance or apparatus is, or has been, provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section. (2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court....'