P SHYAM PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Doctor practising at Tirupathi and has the telephone connection bearing No.2952. For the period from February 1, 1982 to April 1, 1983, his maximum bill was only Rs. 412/- but he received in the interregnum period the bill ending with May 1, 1981 for Rs. 14, 329-10 Ps. with Bill No. 29920. Then he complained that he had not used the S. T. D. but he was using the telephone for incoming calls only. The petitioner asked for disconnection of the STD facility and accordingly it was disconnected. For the quarter ending February 1, 1982 he received a bill for a sum of Rs.6,310/- and another bill for the period ending November 1, 1981 for a sum of Rs. 6,760/-. The petitioner complains that his telephone bill was wrongly billed for the huge amounts for which he had not used the telephone service. He seeks a mandamus for reference to th? Arbitrator as contemplated under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, for short, "the Act." This relief is resisted by the respondents and it is contended by Sri R. Sriramulu, their learned Standing Counsel that Section 7-B of the Act does not apply to wrong billing. In support thereof, he placed strong reliance on a decision reported in Raghubar Dayal vs. Union Of India (1). The question therefore is whether the dispute can be referred to the arbitrator or not as contemplated under Sec. 7-B of the Act. Subsection (1) of Section 7-B reads thus ;

(2.) The decision cited by Sri P. Sriramulu, learned standing counsel for the respondent is not helpful to the respondent for the reason that in that case the bill was issued for certain amount and subsequently it was revised and the revised bill was disputed and it was contended that the revised billing is violative of the principles of natural justice and the relief sought for is not to disconnect or remove the telephon and to collect the correct bill amount. There the contention of the respondent itself was that the writ petition was not maintainable because alternative remedy is provided under Section 7-B of the Act. In that context the learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition. With due respect, the view expressed by the learned Judge does not apply to the facts of this case and even if it applies, I am not prepared to agree with the ratio.

(3.) The writ petition is accordingly allowed and there shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to make a reference to the arbitrator and it is open to the petitioner and the respondents to adduce evidence before the arbitrator and the abitrator will decide it according to rules. No costs.