NATIONAL D ECO RATI JUG CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common run of the cases filed in this jurisdiction against the Telegraph authority, which are almost inundating dockets of this court, are typical.- The petitioners come with the usual complaint that the billing by the Telegraph Authority in respect of the telephones has been wrong and excessive and try to fortify their contention by pointing out that the bills for the periods immediately preceding were at much lower scale. Bills for lesser amounts for the preceding cycles can not, by themselves, lead to the inference that the Bills for higher amounts for the succeeding cycles are wrong or excessive. The respondent Telegraph Authority appears and asserts that the Bills have been correctly made and we then, almost as a matter of course, dispose of the matter by directing the disputes to be referred to arbitration under the provisions of Section 7b of the telegraph Act, 18 85, with a further direction to the Central government, usually a party to the petitions before us, to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of that Section.

(2.) ASSERTION by the subscriber that the telephone bill is excessive and the amount billed is much more than what it ought to have been and a counter-assertion by the Telephone be Authority that the Bill is correct, would, by. and large, involve dispuited questions of fact and Writ Court is generally not the forum. for the adjudication of such disputes and, therefore, until the insertion of Section 7b in the Telegraph Act of 1885 in 1957, the dispute was, to be resolved by ordinary suit. But is there anything in Section 7b which would justify invocation of the Writ jurisdiction and the issuance of Writs? Set us have a look at the Section, reading as hereunder : -

(3.) IF dispute relating to the amount of Bill concerning or relating to a telephone is, and in my view it is, a dispute within the meaning of Section 7b, and such a dispute is raised by the subscriber, it is difficult to understand as to how any action to the prejudice of the subscriber can be taken by the Telegraph Authority for non-payment of such Bill, without having that dispute resolved by arbitration under and in accordance with Section 7b. I should 'like to have no doubt that once a dispute is raised within the meaning of Section. 7b, an arbitration there under is a must before the authority can proceed further to the prejudice of the subscriber. There is nothing to prevent the subscriber from asking the Authority to take steps for appointment of and reference to the Arbitrator and in fact the subscriber should do so, if he finds the Authority not to move in the matter with reasonable expedition. But since the Authority would not be able to take further action for the non-payment of the Bill until the dispute is arbitrated, and thus the ball is more in its court than that of the- subscriber, it would be for the Authority, both in departmental and also in public interest, to take the move as expeditiously as possible. But if the Telegraph authority does not do so, is the Writ Court the only forum that can be resorted to by the subscriber for the necessary relief ? Can not, and should not, the subsrciber move the civil Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. , 1940 ?