RASIKLAL Vs. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELEPHONES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L . The three petitioners in this case pray for issue of writs of Certiorari for quashing notices issued to them by the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Raipur Division, on 14th April 1964 informing them that the telephones installed at the petitioners' business premises would be disconnected within one week. They also pray that a direction be issued to the Divisional Engineer restraining him from giving effect to those notices.

(2.) THE ground for disconnection slated in the notices was that the telephones had been installed for the benefit of the petitioners, but that they were being used by third parties and this user amounted to "unauthorized use." The petitioners contend that under the terms of the contract under which the telephones were installed and the Rules for Telephones contained in Part V of the Rules made under section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, they have acquired a vested right to have the installation continued and the telephones could not be disconnected on the ground stated in the notices issued to them when they have been regularly paying all the telephone bills and charges .

(3.) IT is not necessary to examine the contentions of the petitioners that they have acquired a vested right of having the telephones installed at their places continued and that the notices issued to them by the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, were illegal and without jurisdiction. The reason is that during the course of the hearing of the petitioner Shri Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, sought have for amending the petition so as to seek the relief, in the alternative, of the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opponent to make a reference of the dispute to arbitrati0n under section 7 -B of the Act. The point, therefore, that requires consideration is whether the dispute between the petitioners and the telegraph authority is one falling under section 7 -B of the Art. If the dispute is covered by section 7 -B, then clearly there must be a reference of the dispute to arbitration in tarms of section 7 -B and in that even it would not be necessary to express any opinion on the other contentions raised by the petitioners.