- (1.) The writ petition challenged the demand made by the Department of Telephone Communication that the telephone charges raised through the bill as unreasonable and it was out of sync with the normal pattern of consumption and the usage that he had for the telephone connection at his residence. He relied on the usual pattern of charges and after disputing the bill raised on him, sought for statutory arbitration as provided under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. It appears that the Arbitrator took a decision affirming the bill that had been raised and it is that order which is in challenge before this Court.
(2.) Previously on 22.02.1992, a Bench of this Court had directed the above case to be listed after the decision in CWP No.14214 of 1991. The said case has been decided by this Court on 29.04.2011, where this Court has granted further rebate of Rs.2,000/- for an amount determined by the Arbitrator. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a still further decision rendered by this Court in CWP No.111 of 1992, where the Bench had redetermined the amount as Rs.5,000/- payable.
(3.) I am afraid, I cannot treat any of above two decisions as constituting a binding precedent for me. The award passed through a statutory arbitration under Section 7-B would still require to be tested only on the parameters of what the law allows for, for a particular determination rendered before the year 1996, under the Arbitration Act of 1940. The Court cannot substitute the decision of an Arbitrator unless the award is assailable for any of the reasons set forth under Section 34. The writ petition itself is not a proper remedy and the petitioner ought to have had different proceedings initiated under the Arbitration Act itself.;