AKIMUDDIN ANSARI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM CALCUTTA TELECOMMUNICATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order dated 12th Aug., 2004 the learned Single Jude (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Soumitra Pal) was pleased to find that there is difference in the views of the Court taken in the matter of Union of India Owing Calcutta Telephones Vs. Messrs Bikaner Properties (Pvt.) Ltd., Cal LT 1996 (2) HC 368 and Md. Sirajul Haque Vs. Union of India and others (W. P. No. 8614 (W) of 1999) passed on 5th Sept., 2002 by His Lordship The Honourable Mr. Justice Pranab Kumar Chatopadhyay. Therefore, it was felt by His Lordship that the matter should be referred to a Larger Bench and thus the matter has since been referred to this Bench.

(2.) Mr. Abu Sufian, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under section 7-B(1) Cal LT 1996 (2) HC 368, of the Indian Telegraph Act. 1885 the arbitration is permissible within the limited scope relating to the equipment and the apparatus excluding excess bill. He relied on the decision in Naresh Chandra Roy Vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 Cal. 147 . by a learned Single Judge of this Court wherein it was held that if for some period the telephone remains out of order and non-functional, then for that period no rental could be charged. We do not think that this decision can throw any light with retard to the point involved and raised by Mr. Sufian in this case. Mr. Sufian also relied on the decision In Santokh Singh Vs. Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Shillong and others, AIR 1990 Gauhati 47 , by a Division Bench wherein it was held that the provisions of section 7-B is confined to matters specifically indicated therein and not to all the disputes between the Telephone Department and the subscribers. It was held that the language used in the said section is specific and it relates only the telephone lines, appliance or apparatus and therefore dispute regarding excess billing would not fall within the ambit of section 7-B and as such no remedy would be available thereunder. It was also held that even if the excess billing could be the subject matter of arbitration under section 7-B even then it would not have taken away the jurisdiction of the High Court to exercise Its jurisdiction under 226 of the Constitution of India. He also relied on the decision in Union of India Owing Calcutta Telephones Vs. Messrs Bikaner Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra) by a learned Single Judge of this Court following the decision in Santokh Singh (supra) taking identical view that the dispute regarding excess billing does not fall within the ambit of section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act.

(3.) Mr. Sarkar, learned Counsel for the respondent however, disputed the said proposition and submitted that section 7-B clearly indicates that all disputes concerning line including excess billing are covered thereunder. lie also relied on the decision in Telecom District Manager, Goa and others Vs. V.S. Dempo and Co. and others, (1996) 8 SCC 753 . to support his contention.