AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Govindasamy, J.—By consent of parties, this writ has been taken up for final hearing. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for
issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order of the second respondent dated 27-1-1990 and to direct the respondents
to restore the telephone connection for the telephone No. 8251259 at the petitioner''s premises No. 52, Habibulla Road, T. Nagar, Madras-17.
On an application made by the petitioner for installation of telephone, a telephone bearing No. 446259 was installed on 31-3-1989. It is stated
that on 31-3-1989, the petitioner made a request for a fancy telephone number. In pursuance of the request, it is stated that, a new telephone
bearing No. 447574 was installed on 12-5-1989. However the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has not received any communication with
reference to the installation of new telephone. The petitioner has received the telephone bill dated 12.7.1989 for telephone No. 446259 for a sum
of Rs. 600 and the said bill was paid by the petitioner. Later, the petitioner received a bill dated 7-11-1989 in lieu of the aforesaid bill for a sum of
Rs. 1,070 which was also paid by the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner has received a bill dated 12-7-1989 for telephone No. 447574 for
a sum of Rs 36,533. It is that bill that is sought to be challenged.
On notice from the court, Mr. K.P. Krishna Shetty, learned counsel for the department appears and makes representation that in so far as the
bill dated 7-11-1989 for telephone No. 446259 is concerned, there appears to be some mistake and consequently the excess payment made in
respect of the said bill was kept in suspense account in the name of the petitioner; in so far as the bill dated 12-5-1989 for the telephone No.
447574 is concerned, the said telephone was installed on 12-5-1989 and consequently the bill was made on 12-7-1989 for the calls made during
the aforesaid period and consequently the bill was made for a sum of Rs. 36,533 for the calls made by the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the respondent further represented that consequent upon the installation of the electronic telephone exchange, the
present telephone number for the petitioner''s telephone is 8251259. It is by reason of the failure on the part of the petitioner to pay the said sum of
Rs. 36,533 for telephone No. 447574 the existing telephone in the petitioner''s premises was disconnected. Having regard to the aforesaid facts
and the argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in my view, this is a fit and proper case where in so far as the bill
relating to telephone No. 447574 dated 12-7-1989 for a sum of Rs. 36,533 is concerned, the respondents should be directed to refer the matter
for adjudication by an Arbitrator to be appointed by the respondent within a period of 15 days from this date and the Arbitrator after providing
opportunities both to the petitioner as well as the respondents to place the entire records and materials in respect of the telephone No. 447574 will
adjudicate the matter and pass orders within a period of three months thereafter and the respondent is hereby directed to do so accordingly. In the
meantime, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards the bill dated 12-7-1989 for telephone No. 447574 and also furnish a Bank
Guarantee for a sum of Rs. 15,000 on any of the Nationalised Banks in favour of the Accounts Officer, Madras Telephone, Revenue South, and
on compliance, the respondents are directed to restore the telephone No. 8251259 in the petitioner''s premises. The Bank Guarantee furnished by
the petitioner shall be kept alive pending disposal of the adjudication by the Arbitrator. With the above observations, the writ petition is ordered,
No costs.