IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.10181 of 1998 Dated: April, 2007 Between: Sri Harikishan Bajaj, s/o. Late Sri Jeetmal Bajaj, Aged about 63 years, R/o.14-7-7, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And General Manager, Telecom District, Suryalok Complex, Hyderabad, and another. … Respondents Order: This Writ Petition has been filed questioning the Award dated 17-11-1997, passed by the second respondent – The Arbitrator and Deputy General Manager, A.P. Telecom, with reference to the disputed bills of the telephone of the petitioner, bearing No.590170 (old number 41132), and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are: Petitioner was running business in the name and style of M/s. Hindustan Printing Press, in premises No.14-6-33, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. He subscribed for a telephone and first respondent has affixed a telephone bearing No.41132 (old), which has subsequently been re-numbered as 590710. While things stood thus, petitioner had received bills dated 01-12-1993, 01-02- 1994, 01-04-1994 and 01-06-1994 for the amounts of Rs.4,118/-, Rs.1,399/-, Rs.5,653 and Rs.618 respectively, which according to him, are excessive when compared to the bills for other months. 3. It is stated that petitioner made complaints to the first respondent after he received the first three excessive bills and he was suggested by the Assistant Engineer to get his Standard Trunk Dialling (STD) facility blocked. The case of the petitioner is that though he acted as per the suggestion of the Assistant Engineer, he received the last of the aforesaid bills, i.e. for an amount of Rs.618/-, which is also excessive. It is stated that on one hand, no corrective action was taken by the respondents and on the other; they had disconnected the telephone of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry. It is stated that challenging the action of respondents in disconnecting his telephone, he had filed W.P.No.7995 of 1995 before this court, which was disposed of by order dated 21-04-1995, appointing an Arbitrator under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act. By the aforesaid order, petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.6,000/- and first respondent was also directed to restore petitioner’s telephone connection. The Arbitrator was directed to dispose of the proceedings within three months therefrom. 4. On appointing an Arbitrator, petitioner as well as the first respondent entered their appearance and submitted their arguments in writing. The Arbitrator, while giving benefit of doubt to the consumer, i.e. the petitioner herein, ordered to limit the number of calls to 600 for the fortnight ending 01-11-1993 and another 600 calls for the fortnight ending 01-02-1994. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the bills dated 01-12-1993, 01-02-1994, 01-04-1994 and 01-06-1994 were disputed by the petitioner, in spite of the same, the Arbitrator had taken into consideration only the bills for the fortnights ending 01-11-1993 and 01-02-1994, while passing the impugned Award and the same is illegal. 6. From the submissions made before the Arbitrator, it is the case of the respondents that the telephone of the petitioner referred above was working from non-electronic exchange, wherein the system of S.T.D. locking was not available. It is stated that even during the normal period, petitioner was making 40 calls a day. 7. It is to be noted that when the petitioner has complained against the bills referred above, the matter was enquired into and it was found that there was no abnormality in the meter readings. In the report prepared by the respondents, it was observed that there was liberal usage of S.T.D. calls to Peddapally, Sirpur Kagaznagar, etc. In any event, with regard to the bills for the fortnights ending 01- 11-1993 and 01-02-1994, the Arbitrator opined that calls were made at 200 and 210 per day and that was only contested by the petitioner. Taking into account the normal number of calls made during the undisputed period, the Arbitrator, giving a benefit of doubt to the petitioner, had himself reduced the calls to 600 for the entire fortnight ending 01-11-1993 and another 600 calls for the fortnight ending 01-12-1994. Though learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even with regard to other bills which are in dispute, respondents ought to have reduced the amount charged therein, however, in the enquiry conducted, it was found that there is no abnormality in the meter readings and there was liberal usage of S.T.D. calls to Peddapally and Sirpur Kagaznagar. Having regard to the relief already granted to the petitioner by the Arbitrator, by reducing the calls to 600 for the fortnight ending 01-11-1993 and another 600 calls for the fortnight ending 01-02-1994, I do not find any illegality in the impugned Award warranting interference of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. April, 2007 MRR