IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD W.P.No.1280 of 2001 Between: M.Vinobha Devi ..Petitioner and 1. The General Manager, Telephones, Suryalok Complex, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad and another ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.1280 of 2001 Oral Order: Petitioner who is a subscriber of two telephones bearing Nos.7665865 and 7661124 filed this writ petition questioning the bill dated 11-07-2000 for Rs.32,721/- for the telephone No.7665865, which was disconnected for non-payment of the amount, alleging that she always used to get bill ranging from Rs.1,000 to 2,000/- from the date of installation and in the month of May, 2000 only she received the bill for Rs.2,907/- i.e. the highest. On enquiry it was revealed that STD calls were made to a private company. She furnished the details of the telephone bills and made a representation to the respondents, but the department so far has not verified the same nor suitably amended the bill. Surprisingly she received another bill dated 11-07-2000 for Rs.10,202/- for other telephone No.7661124. In that regard also she received a stereotype reply. Therefore, she filed W.P.No.23101 of 2000 wherein this court stayed disconnection of second telephone. In view of the same, she seeks a Mandamus raising bill without providing statement and conducting enquiry is arbitrary and illegal and direct the respondents to issue revised bills and pass such other or further orders. In response to Rule Nisi respondents filed a counter stating that STD/ISD call statements are sent along with bi-monthly bills and the accounts department reported that it did not receive any compliant from the subscriber about non-receipt of STD statement. A duplicate copy of the STD/ISD call statements can be obtained from any one of the on line cash counters on demand. The petitioner fails to deposit Rs.10,000/- as per the interim order dated 29-01-2001 for restoration of the telephone and telephone has not been restored. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is disputing about payment of the bill, the matter may be referred to an arbitrator and she will abide by the award passed by the arbitrator for which the learned Standing counsel for Central Government has no objection to refer the matter to the arbitrator. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to refer the dispute pertaining to the impugned bills dated 11-07-2000, 11-09-2000 and 11-11-2000 for the telephone No.7665865 to an arbitrator within four weeks from today. On such reference the arbitrator shall entertain the same and pass appropriate orders after due enquiry into the matter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 25-07-2007 Murthy