Union of India vs Sarup Singh Johar

Amar Dutt, J.

This revision petition seeks to challenge the judgment dated 6.10.1998 passed by the District Judge, Ambala, by which the Civil Misc. Appeal against the order dated 21.1.1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala, rejecting the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was accepted.

The facts of the case which are not in dispute are that respondent Sarup Singh Johar had challenged the correctness of three telephone bills dated 1.8.1992, 1.10.1992 and 1.12.1992 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The said Forum had on 8.6.1993 on the statement of counsel for the parties referred the dispute to the Arbitrator under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. It has also directed that till the Award of the Arbitrator is received, the telephone connection should not be disconnected.

Sh. A.S. Bhola, Director Telephones, Haryana Circle, was appointed as the sole arbitrator and he gave his Award on 24.1.1994 in which he did not allow any rebate in any of the impugned bills. The Award was sent to the Consumer Forum for making the same as the rule of the Court which declined the request because the general scheme of the Arbitration Act was not applicable to statutory Arbitration under the Indian Telegraph Act and under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, the Award of the Arbitrator is conclusive and final between the parties. Thereupon, the respondents had filed a suit to challenge the correctness of the awards on the ground that the dispute between the parties did not fall within the ambit of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act and as such the District Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Arbitrator.

The suit as well as the application was contested on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit because the matter in question had already been adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator and the Award is final. The trial Court had after taking into consideration the various arguments before it, rejected the application for interim stay which was filed along with the suit and this rejection has occasioned the filing of Civil Misc. Appeal against the order before the District Judge. The learned District Judge had after hearing the submissions put forth by the learned counsel came to the conclusion that the view taken by the Court below was not justified and it allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and stayed the recovery of the amount of Rs. 13,261/ which was due. The Union of India and General Manager, Telecom Department have come up in revision.

The short point on which the impugned order has been assailed before me is that the question regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to go into the order passed by the Arbitrator under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act has now been settled in M.L. Jaggi v. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Limited and others, A.I.R. 1996 SC 2476 : 1996(1) RRR 646 (SC). In this judgment, the apex Court has observed as under :

"It is, thus, settled law that reasons are required to be recorded when it affects the public interest. It is seen that under Section 7B, 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 opened to him is one provided under Section 7B of the Act. By necessary implication, when the arbitrator decided the dispute under Section 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."

No judgment to the contrary has been cited.

In view of this, the Award given by an Arbitrator in the exercise of powers under Section 7B of the Act must be treated to be final and not open to challenge before the civil Court. If any party desires to seek a judicial review thereof, it is open to it to approach the High Court in the writ jurisdiction.

For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned order of the learned District Judge is set aside and the application for interim stay stands dismissed.