AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Janarthanam, J.—The petitioner, M/s. P. T. Bell & Co., Publishers and Book-sellers, is located at No. 15, Sunkurama Chetty Street,
Madras-1. They are having a telephone number, being 2,5,6,3,4. They, it is said, had been using the telephone facility for well over 18 years and
the bill at any point of time during those period did not exceed Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/-and only during the years 1983-84 they used to get telephone
billing in astronomical figures, not having any relevance or commensuration of the real user of the telephone. This should have been on account of
some defect or other either in the mechanical installations or in the meter reading apparatus and the process of reading.
The following bills were raised for the dates as mentioned below Bills dated 7-8-19S3 for Rs. 8,509/-; 7-10-1983 for Rs. 5,414-50; 7-12-
1983 for Rs. 8,409/-; 7-2-1984 for Rs. 13,068/- and 7-4-1984 for Rs. 6,001/-; thus totalling to Rs. 41,401-50. The petitioner has therefore
asked for disconnection of STD facility and accordingly it was done.
On the representation made by the petitioner, the Department acceded to collect provisional amounts, lesser than that of the bill amounts
respectively for the aforesaid months, namely, Rs. 2,433-50; Rs. 2,329-50; Rs. 2,296-50; Rs. 2,603-50 and Rs. 2,698-60, totalling to Rs.
12,361-50, pending consideration of the verification of the defects complained of.
Subsequently, the Department informed the petitioner that no flaw or defect could be noticed in the equipments and there was threat of
disconnection of the telephone, in case of non-payment of the difference between the actual bill and the provision bill amounts, i.e. Rs. 29,041-00.
The aggrieved petitioner resorted to the present action praying for issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from collecting the sum
of Rs. 29,041/- on threat of disconnection or in any other manner disconnecting the said telephone of the petitioner.
The petitioner also file WMP No. 11893 of 1984 seeking interim direction and this Court by order dated 24-7-1984 passed an order to the
following effect :
Pending disposal of the Writ Petition, there will be an interim direction to the respondents to restore and reconnect immediately the petitioner''s
Telephone Nos. 2, 5, 6, 3, 4, Madras City. The petitioner shall deposit with the third respondent as sum of Rs.7,500/- (Rs. Seven thousand and
five hundred only) within four weeks from this date. In default, the respondents will be at liberty to disconnect the telephone in question. The
petitioner should pay future bills without default.
The interim order so made, it is said, had been complied with and the petitioner is now utilised the services of the said telephone.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the facts and circumstances, in which the petitioner is placed compunctions of
justice, enquiry and good conscience impel the Court to refer the dispute to an Arbitrator u/s 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short ''the
Act'').
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would however strike a discordant note that the facts and circumstances of the case would not
warrant any reference of the dispute for decision by an Arbitrator u/s 7-B of the Act.
From the rival submissions of either Counsel, the moot question that arises for consideration is as to whether it is legitimately permissible to refer
the dispute of excess telephone billing, in the circumstances of the case, to an Arbitrator for his decision, as contemplated u/s 7-B of the Act.
It is not as if such a question has not arisen for consideration before any superior Court of jurisdiction and the plain fact is that such a question
did arise for consideration before Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of P. Shyam Prasad v. Union of India, 1988 2 ALT 290. For
understanding the principles evolved in that decision, I feel it is but necessary to refer to, in an incisive way, the facts of that case.
(a) The petitioner was a doctor practising at Tirupathi and had the telephone connection bearing Nos. 2, 9, 5, 2. 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 with Bill No. 29920. Then he complained that he had not used the STD 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 I, 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/-. He complained that his telephone
bill was wrongly billed for the huge amounts for which he had not used the telephone service. He sought a mandamus for reference to the
Arbitrator as contemplated u/s 7-B of the Act. The relief so prayed for, however, had been resisted by the respondents therein.
(b) In such a situation, learned Judge, who decided the case, posed the question as to whether the dispute can be referred to the Arbitrator or not,
as contemplated u/s 7-B of the Act.
(c) In answering such a question, after extracting sub-section (1) of Section 7-B, learned Judge said thus :
A reading thereof, indicates that when a dispute regarding apparatus is concerned, then it would be a matter of reference to the arbitrator specially
appointed by the Government. The question, therefore, is whether wrong billing is a dispute concerning to the apparatus or any other matter
connected therewith. When the petitioner has been consistently using the services of the telephone connection and the Meter reading does not
normally exceed Rs. 412/-, then there must be some extraordinary reasons for making the bills for Rs. 14,320-10, Rs. 6,310/- and Rs. 6,760/- for
the respective periods. Therefore, when the petitioner is disputing the correctness thereof, necessarily it concerns or relates to the use of the
apparatus by the petitioner. Admittedly, except the procedure contemplated u/s 7-B of the Act, there is no other procedure provided under the
Act or any rules made therein to adjudicate the dispute. The petitioner''s grievance is that he had not used the telephone service for the bills which
he was compelled to pay and the same must be decided by an independent authority. In a democracy, governed by rule of law, no citizen shall be
subjected to an arbitrary action without redress and a citizen cannot be compelled to pay higher amounts for the services, which the petitioner has
not availed of or used. Under those circumstances, I am of the view that the dispute is concerned with the apparatus particularly because the
dispute is with regard to the incorrect billing and it comes within the meaning of dispute concerning apparatus, otherwise the very purpose will be
defeated and the citizen will be left with no option except to pay the arbitrary billing for no fault of him. Under these circumstances, I am of the
view that Section 7-B of the Act would apply to such a situation and the dispute has to be referred to the arbitrator appointed by the Central
Government in that regard.
The facts, and circumstances in the instant case are exactly identical to the case cited supra and therefore it is, it goes without saying that the
principle evolved in the aforesaid decision may very well be followed. In so stating, I respectfully agree with the view of learned Judge, who
decided the said case.
In this view of the matter, the dispute in the instant case, is ordered to be referred to an Arbitrator, to be appointed by the Central Government
u/s 7-B of the Act, within a reasonable time from the date of receipt of this order for arriving at a decision. The writ petition is disposed of
accordingly. No costs.
Order accordingly.