M/S. CARRY CO. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner Messrs Carry Company, seeks to assail the validity of the award at Annexure-3 rendered by the Arbitrator under section 7-B of (The Indian) Telegraph Act, 1885.

(2.) The petitioner is a company engaged in the trade of transport and has its Regional Office at Pithapur Road in the city of Cuttack. It has a telephone bearing number 24637 Ck. According to the petitioner for the period from 16-6-1986 to 15-8-1986 the telephone charges were only Rs. 1953.50. Similarly for the period from 16-8-1986 to 15-10-1986 the charges were Rs. 3251.50 and during June to August, 1987 and October, 1987 to December, 1987, the bill amounts were Rs. 2641/- and Rs. 2492/- respectively. It is the case of the petitioner that all on a sudden it received a bill for the period from 16-12-1987 to 15-2-1988 amounting to Rs. 16,505/-. The bill amount being exorbitant, it lodges a dispute before the Telecom District Engineer, opposite party No. 3. On such dispute being lodged, the bill was split up and the petitioner was directed to pay only Rs. 3114/- which was duly paid. Thereafter another bill was served on the petitioner coveting the period from 16-2-1988 to 15-4-1988 amounting to Rs. 11,661/-. The petitioner again raised a dispute in respect of the said bill. He was subsequently served with another bill amounting to Rs. 27,665/- for the period from 16-4-1988 to 15-6-1988. As there was no enquiry into the grievances of the petitioner, he moved this Court in O.J.C. No. 2713 of 1988. This Court directed the Union of India-opposite party No. 1 to appoint an arbitrator to decide the dispute arising between the parties in terms of Section 7-B of (The Indian) Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In obedience to the said direction, opposite patty No. 4 was appointed as the arbitrator who gave his award dated 18-9-1989 as per Annexure-3. The arbitrator held that the petitioner is not entitled to any rebate of any of the disputed bills and it is liable for payment of the dues as per the rules of the department. As already mentioned, this award, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) This matter was heard earlier by a Division Bench consisting of (K.C.J. Ray, J. and R.K. Patra, J). In course of the hearing it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that absence of reasons in the award rendered under Section 7-B of the Act makes the same vulnerable. On behalf of the department, a judgment rendered by this Court in Messrs Hotel Oberoi v. Union of India (O.J.C. No. 1704 of 1987 disposed of on 11-3-1993) was pressed into service wherein it has been held that an arbitrator under section 7-B of the Act is not bound to record reasons. As the latter Bench differed from the opinion expressed in the case of Messrs Hotel Oberoi, the matter came to be referred to a Full Bench On 15-9-1994, the Full Bench did not feel inclined to express any opinion for the reason that the impugned award contained reasons. The said order reads as follows :