AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.—Petitioner is the Director of M/s Saniya Fishes and Feeds Private Limited. He is having a telephone 60823 at his residence. On 1st October 1988 Petitioner was served with a bill, Ext. P-1, directing him to pay an amount of Rs. 8,283. Since the demand was exhorbitant, Petitioner filed a representation, evidenced by Ext. P-2. On receipt of Ext. P-2, the first Respondent split the bill and directed payment of Rs. 4,035 provisionally pending investigation of the complaint. The balance amount was however included in the subsequent bill. According to the Petitioner, he noticed that after dialing STD calls even after the call is over, STD system is not disconnected, for several minutes. Petitioner then filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Officer, evidenced by Ext. P-4. The complaint was given as early as on 12th November 1388. However, no action has been taken. Later, the Petitioner received a bill dated 1st December 1988 for an amount of Rs. 38,371. Since the amount was exhorbitant Petitioner lodged a complaint before the subdivisional Officer. He made yet Anr. representation, Ext. P-6, for disconnecting STD facility. However the Petitioner was again served with a split bill for Rs. 5,696 keeping the balance amount of Rs. 32,675 under dispute. The complaint filed by the Petitioner was however disposed of by the first Respondent pointing out that there was no defect in the telephone system, and Petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,248 kept under dispute as per Ext. P-3 bill. The said communication was produced by the Petitioner as Ext. P-8. The same was followed by Anr. bill for Rs. 16,287. The said bill covers the period from 16th November 1988 to 15th January 1989.
It is the case of the Petitioner that in spite of specific request made for disconnection of the STD facility, the same was not disconnected. Petitioner filed yet Anr. complaint evidenced by Ext. P-10. In the meantime, Ext. P-6 complaint filed by the Petitioner was disposed of Ext. P-12 order. As per the said order, an amount of Rs. 12,500 was awarded as rebate. However, he was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 20,175. Petitioner then sought a reference of the dispute u/s 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act to an arbitrator. He filed O.P. No. 3124 of 1989 for the said purpose. Original Petition was disposed of on 5th June 1989 directing Respondents 1 to 3 to refer the dispute concerning Exts. P-1, P-5 and P-9 bills for arbitration. It was also ordered that until the arbitrator takes a decision, the three bills were ordered to be kept in abeyance on condition that Petitioner remits Rs. 5,000 each towards three bills. Respondents 1 to 3 were also directed to disconnect the STD facility. The STD facility was subsequently disconnected on 28th June 1989.
Later the fourth Respondent was appointed as arbitrator. He issued notice to the Petitioner as well as to the second Respondent to submit their objections. Petitioner reiterated his complaints. According to the Petitioner no statement was filed by the second Respondent, even though he was specifically directed by the arbitrator and the Petitioner was not given a copy of the same. On 18th December 1989 Petitioner received a communication from the first Respondent stating that an award has been passed by the fourth Respondent on 24th November 1989, forwarding bills for Rs. 11,654; Rs. 13,912; and Rs. 4,618 towards the new bills for 1st December 1988, 1st February 1989 and 1st April 1989.
The main grievance of Counsel for the Petitioner is that the arbitrator while passing Ext. P-l8 award has not properly considered the various objections filed by the Petitioner. It was also stated that he has not given any reason for rejecting the complaint raised by the Petitioner. It is also contended by Counsel for the Petitioner that the arbitrator having found that the Petitioner was entitled to get further rebate of 6000 calls ought to have found that the complaint raised by the Petitioner was genuine. He therefore prayed that the award may be set aside and the matter be remitted to the arbitrator for fresh consideration.
I heard Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. I am of the view that the arbitrator has considered various aspects while deciding the dispute. He has also perused the fault records of the subscriber and found that the said records did not indicate any fault which caused excess registration of calls. It is an admitted fact that telephone was having S.T.D. facility. It is also revealed that the Petitioner is having business contacts in India and abroad. It is also pointed out that when I.S.D. service to Gulf countries were not available, Petitioner used to book international calls which used to last for long periods. Since the authorities did not disconnect the S.T.D. facility, inspite of the Petitioner''s request, it was felt that the rebate already given for 10,000 calls was justified. It is also seen that the arbitrator has given a further rebate for 6,000 calls in the bill dated 1st December 1988 and a rebate for 2,000 calls in the bill dated 1st February 1989. After perusing the award, I am convinced that the arbitrator has looked into various aspects before passing the award and has given reasonable remission. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not expected to conduct a rowing enquiry to find any irregularity or illegality in the award passed by the arbitrator. Petitioner has not produced any material to take such a view.
Petitioner''s Counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in M.L. Jaggi Vs. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. and others, and contended that since the arbitrator has not given reasons, this Court is entitled to set aside the award and remit the matter to the arbitrator to give reasons in support thereof I am of the view that the said decision is not applicable to the instant case. The arbitrator had considered various aspects and had given sufficient reasons while passing the award. In fact he has given certain remissions also to the Petitioner. The earlier view of the Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority Vs. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors etc. etc., was that an award passed under the Arbitration Act is not liable to be remitted or set aside merely on the ground that no reasons have been given in its support. However the Supreme Court in the decision in M.L. Jaggi Vs. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. and others, held:
Under Section 7, the award is conclusive when the citizen complains that he was not correctly put to bill of the calls he had made and disputed the demand for payment. The statutory remedy open to him is one provided u/s 7B of the Act. By necessary implication, when the arbitrator decides the dispute u/s 7B, he is enjoined to give reasons in support of his decision since it is final and cannot be questioned in a court of law. The only obvious remedy available to the aggrieved person against the award is judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the reasons are not given, it would be difficult for the High Court to adjudge as to under what circumstances the arbitrator came to his conclusion that the amount demanded by the Department is correct or the amount disputed by the citizen is unjustified. The reasons would indicate as to how the mind of the arbitrator was applied to the dispute and how he arrived at the decision. The High Court though does not act in exercising judicial review as a court of appeal but within narrow limits of judicial review it would consider the correctness and legality of the award.
The Supreme Court in the above-mentioned decision held that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court will operate only prospectively. It has been categorically held by the Supreme Court that any award passed by an arbitrator prior to the date of the Supreme Court judgment is not liable to be reopened. In other words, the order is prospective in its operation. Therefore even if the arbitrator failed to give any reasons for passing the award this Court is not justified in reopening the said award and remitting the matter to the arbitrator for fresh consideration. As I have already held that the arbitrator has given reasons therefore, the question of remitting the matter to the arbitrator does not arise.
It is stated by Counsel for the Petitioner that he had deposited large amounts on the basis of directions of this Court. Whatever amounts he has deposited with the department will be given credit to and the department will demand only the balance amount legitimately due to it.
Original Petition is dismissed.