IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37267 of 2007(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- THALHATH C.P., S/O. SAIDALAVI, T.M.26/504, CHULLIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADUVILANGADI, P.O. POOKAYIL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, B.S.N.L. MALAPPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER,BSNL, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL SRI.V.R.KESAVAKAIMAL, SC, BSNL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 37267 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 11th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was allotted an STD Public Telephone Booth in Tirur in Malappuram District. According to him, five STD public telephones were allotted for teleconferencing and another 5 STD public telephones for general use. Petitioner contends that he had opted for the 'One India Plan' for the above public telephones. There was default on the part of the petitioner in paying the amount which fell due and therefore Exhibit P1 notice was issued to him stating that an amount of Rs.2,53,738/- is due from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he had disputed the correctness of the demand vide Exhibit P2. There is a dispute as to whether the petitioner had actually submitted Exhibit P2. In the statement filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, there is an assertion that the respondents had not received Exhibit P2. Petitioner is also not in a position to produce any material to show that Exhibit P2 had actually been despatched and served on the addressee. 2. Petitioner had earlier moved the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum challenging the correctness of the demand W.P ( C) No. 37267 of 2007 2 made under Exhibit P1. The Consumer Disputes Redressall Forum vide Exhibit P4 order rejected the petitioner's complaint, inter alia, on the ground that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint involving a dispute regarding the correctness of the demand raised by the B.S.N.L. Petitioner has thereafter moved this writ petition challenging the revenue recovery notice which was issued by the respondents for recovery of the balance amount due under Exhibit P1. It may be noted that in the meanwhile petitioner had remitted an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards partial satisfaction of the demand. 3. A statement has been filed by Sri. V.R.Kesava Kaimal, counsel for the respondents 1 & 2. As noted above, apart from refuting the receipt of Exhibit P2, further contentions have also been taken up. Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 7 B of the Telegraph Act Respondents contend that the petitioner is not entitled to seek a reference to an Arbitrator under Section 7 B of the Telegraph Act because there is no sufficient material before the Court to show that the petitioner has actually raised a dispute with W.P ( C) No. 37267 of 2007 3 regard to Exhibit P1 and further the dispute is not cognizable under Section 7 B of the Telegraph Act. In the circumstances, after hearing the counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. i) The petitioner may file his objections, if any, to Exhibit P1, within four weeks from today before the 1st respondent giving details as to his objections as regards the correctness of the demand made therein. ii) If the petitioner is desirous of an adjudication of the dispute by an Arbitrator under Section 7 B of the Telegraph Act, he shall indicate the same in the representation. iii) The respondent shall consider whether the petitioner is entitled to raise a dispute and seek a reference of the same to an Arbitrator under Section 7B of the Telegraph Act. If the 1st respondent accepts the position that the dispute can be referred to an Arbitrator, the same shall be done. iv) If the 1st respondent is of the opinion that the dispute is not referable to an Arbitrator under Section 7 B of the W.P ( C) No. 37267 of 2007 4 Telegraph Act, he shall give reasons for the same. v) Orders in this regard shall be passed by the 1st respondent, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation to be submitted by the petitioner, after hearing the petitioner. Further proceedings in pursuance of Exhibits P1 and P3 shall be kept in abeyance till the 1st respondent takes a decision provided the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.One lakh by depositing the same before the 2nd respondent , within a period of four weeks from today. Further enforcement of Exhibits P1 and P3 shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the 1st respondent in the manner aforementioned. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 37267 of 2007 5 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER W.P ( C) No. 37267 of 2007 6 25th May, 2007