(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2108 OF 1999 Harshawardhan Gautamchand Jain, Age : 51 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. "Do Mitra", Station Road, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Union of India. 2. The General Manager, Telecom, Aurangabad. 3. Telecom District Manager, Department of Telecommunication, CTO Building, Near Abhinay Theatre, Aurangabad. 4. Shri H.K. Mahajan, Arbitrator & Telecom District Manager, Dhule. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Sonawane, Standing Counsel, for respondent nos.1 to 4. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 15th January 1999, passed by the learned Arbitrator and Telecom District Manager, Dhule, in Case No. TDM/Arbitration/AGD/98-99/14. 2. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the award has been passed only by accepting the statement on behalf of the respondent / Department, that if repeated attempts are made for STD calls, there is a possibility of the STD calls being materialized. He submits that in the absence of the STD facility available to the petitioner, such conclusion is not tenable. 3. Mr. V.D. Sonawane, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the contrary, submits that the learned Arbitrator has arrived at a just finding which does not call for any interference. 4. The petition will have to be allowed on a short (3) ground. The award passed by the learned Arbitrator does not reflect any reasons. Under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985, it is necessary for the Arbitrator to assign reasons for arriving at a conclusion. The Apex Court, in the case of M.L. Jaggi Vs. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. and others (AIR 1996 SC 2476), while considering the provisions of Section 7B of the Telegraph Act, 1985, has held that an award without assigning reasons is not sustainable in law. In that view of the matter, the impugned award, without assigning any reasons, is liable to be set aside. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) The impugned award dated 15th January 1999, passed by the learned Arbitrator and Telecom District Manager, Dhule, in Case No. TDM/Arbitration/AGD/98-99/14, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Arbitrator for deciding it afresh, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. (ii) The amount, which has been deposited by the petitioner, in this Court, is permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner, subject to filing an undertaking, in this Court, that if it is found that the petitioner is liable to pay any amount in pursuance to the decision of the Arbitrator, he shall pay the same. (4) 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2108