Case: Telecom District Manager, Goa and Others Vs. V.S. Dempo and Company and Others

1. Appeals are taken on board. 2. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Bombay High Court, Panaji Bench made on 31-3-1995 in CWP No. 398 of 1994 and batch. The facts relate to the dispute raised by the respondents for two bills, one for a sum of Rs 99, 196 and the other for Rs 71, 280. The appellant-Union of India has taken the stand that under the Administrative Instructions issued by it, the dispute cannot be referred unless the subscriber approaches the court and the court gives the direction for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act, 1885. Section 7-B reads as under. "7-B. Arbitration of Disputes. - (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been, provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purposes of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section.(2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court." * 3. A reading thereof would indicate that if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by an arbitrator. Such determination shall be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of the dispute or generally for the determination of the dispute under this section. The award of the arbitrator shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and its correctness is prohibited from being questioned in a court of law. It would, otherwise, be clear that any dispute regarding the billing of the meter and the liability on a subscriber thereon when its correctness is disputed, should be referred to the arbitrator by the Central Government. The arbitrators award shall be final. In a recent judgment, considering the provisions of the Act, this Court has explained that when the arbitrators award is final, it would be subject to only judicial review. The judicial review by the High Court or this Court would be possible only when the arbitrator gives reasons in support of the conclusions he reaches, be it technical or on factual basis. The Administrative Instructions issued by the Union of India that the dispute shall be referred only when there is a reference by the court is obviously in defiance of the language used in Section 7-B. The power to refer the dispute has been given by Parliament only with a view to see that the authority acts within reasonable limits and that when the subscriber disputes the correctness of the meter reading or operation of the apparatus etc. instead of litigating the dispute in a civil court, it should be decided by the arbitrator under Section 7-B. Obviously, pending proceedings the Act intended to operate without undue delay to secure public revenue and also flow of electrical operation envisages under the Act. Under those circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court is right in directing that the authority under the Act is enjoined to make reference under Section 7-B without any direction by the court and if need be it is for the subscriber to approach the court

Decision:
0[ds]3. A reading thereof would indicate that if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by an arbitrator. Such determination shall be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of the dispute or generally for the determination of the dispute under this section. The award of the arbitrator shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and its correctness is prohibited from being questioned in a court of law. It would, otherwise, be clear that any dispute regarding the billing of the meter and the liability on a subscriber thereon when its correctness is disputed, should be referred to the arbitrator by the Central Government. The arbitrators award shall be final. In a recent judgment, considering the provisions of the Act, this Court has explained that when the arbitrators award is final, it would be subject to only judicial review. The judicial review by the High Court or this Court would be possible only when the arbitrator gives reasons in support of the conclusions he reaches, be it technical or on factual basis. The Administrative Instructions issued by the Union of India that the dispute shall be referred only when there is a reference by the court is obviously in defiance of the language used in Section 7-B. The power to refer the dispute has been given by Parliament only with a view to see that the authority acts within reasonable limits and that when the subscriber disputes the correctness of the meter reading or operation of the apparatus etc. instead of litigating the dispute in a civil court, it should be decided by the arbitrator under Section 7-B. Obviously, pending proceedings the Act intended to operate without undue delay to secure public revenue and also flow of electrical operation envisages under the Act. Under those circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court is right in directing that the authority under the Act is enjoined to make reference under Section 7-B without any direction by the court and if need be it is for the subscriber to approach the