IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17992 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision:24.08.2011 Continental Device India Limited, 132, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, through Shri Swaraj Singh, its General Manager. ...Petitioner versus Union of India, through its Chairman, Telecom Commission, Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Anil Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner . Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the award passed by the Arbitrator rejecting a claim made by the petitioner that bi-monthly telephone bills for 2 terms were excessive and they were required to be quashed. A reference to arbitration had been made under the Arbitration Act of 1940 by the Civil Court before which the petitioner had originally brought the challenge. The Arbitrator appointed by the Additional D.G. Telecom held that no interference was called for. Civil Writ Petition No.17992 of 1991 (O&M) - 2 - 2. The petitioner's contention is that since the award passed on 30.08.1991 was not made the order of Court, the petitioner did not opt for assailing the award under the Arbitration Act itself before the competent Court and hence, has brought the challenge by means of a writ petition. It is also contended that the Arbitrator appointed was not competent to function as such, since under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, the Central Government alone shall be competent to appoint an Arbitrator. It is sought to be explained by the respondents in reply that the D.G. Telecom was the Secretary and in exercise of powers, he had acted on behalf of the Central Government and appointed the Arbitrator. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Additional D.G. Telecom was not competent to appoint the Arbitrator, since, according to the respondents, it was the D.G. Telecom, who was competent to appoint the Arbitrator. The counsel for the Central Government produces before me a copy of the order issued by the Deputy Director General recording the fact of approval of the President for the delegation of the power to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to the respective heads of offices of Controller of Communication Accounts (Principal Controller of Communication Accounts/ Controller of Communication Accounts as the case may be) for the determination of disputes. The Additional Deputy Director as the head of the office of the Controller of Communication was, therefore, competent to appoint the Arbitrator. Hence the objection regarding the competence of the Arbitrator cannot be sustained. Civil Writ Petition No.17992 of 1991 (O&M) - 3 - 3. The other argument is that the Arbitrator had not properly assessed the grievance and he has merely affirmed the bill raised without joining the controversies properly. According to the petitioner, the order of the Arbitrator was not even made the rule of Court and, therefore, the Telecom Department cannot rely on the demand already made. This objection, in my view, suffers from a fundamental error in assuming that if the order of the Arbitrator does not become a rule of Court, the Telecom Department cannot enforce the bills at all. In this case, the subject of demand was sought to be quashed at the instance of the petitioner. If the Telecom Department was to enforce the award then unless the order of the Arbitrator is made a decree of Court, it could not have obtained the power to secure the enforcement. The Telecom Department has no reason to enforce the order for a challenge to the pre- existing demand contained through the arbitral reference was rejected and the effect of the demand which could have been eclipsed if the claim had been allowed by the Arbitrator would obtain its own force by the fact that the previous demand stood unsullied. The reliance of making the award a decree of Court would arise only if the Telecom Department was trying to enforce the award. On the other hand, it is the petitioner, who wants to contend that the award is not valid and the demand contained which was the subject of challenge before the Arbitrator, was not valid. If the demand has not been set aside in favour of the petitioner in any manner then the petitioner cannot obtain a favourable consideration before this Court through Article 226 of the Constitution. Civil Writ Petition No.17992 of 1991 (O&M) - 4 - 4. The petitioner's challenge ought to, therefore, fail and the petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 24.08.2011 sanjeev