IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 55 OF 2008 SHRI. EDUARDO FALEIRO ... Petitioner Versus MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. S. Kantak and Mr. Abhijeet Kamat, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. J. Vaz, Central Govt. Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. P. P. Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4. Coram:- A. P. DESHPANDE & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 23rd October, 2008 P.C. Heard. This petition filed belatedly takes an exception to an Award passed on 28.9.2001. 2. The petitioner was a Member of Parliament during the period 1988-96. During the said term, the petitioner was also a Minister in the Union Cabinet. Two telephone connections were made available to the petitioner bearing telephone nos. 733300 and 720800 in his personal name. The respondent No.4 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, is the telephone company which had made available the said telephone connections. 3. As the bills were not paid to the tune of more than Rs.22,00,000/-, the said respondent initiated proceedings which culminated in passing of an Award under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885. The Award was, thereafter, put in execution. Certain objections to the Award were raised in the execution proceedings before the Civil Judge. The Civil Court rejected the objections. Aggrieved thereby, a Writ Petition bearing No.258/07 came to be filed by the present petitioner. The said writ petition came to be dismissed. Thereafter, it appears that a review petition was filed. The said review petition is said to be pending. After the petitioner's attempt to stall the execution of the award failed, this petition came to be filed, disputing the petitioner's liability to pay the telephone bills for recovery of which the Award came to be passed. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Award is devoid of any reasons and hence unsustainable in law. 5. We have perused the Award. It does contain reasons. It records a factual position that the bills have been issued periodically and the Hon'ble M.P. has not challenged the correctness of the bill at any stage. Perusal of the Award further reveals that the stand taken by the present petitioner, who had appeared in person before the Arbitrator, was that the bills were paid. However, he did not produce any proof in regard to the payment of the amount covered by the bills. We need not go into the merits of the matter as, in our opinion, the present petition deserves to be dismissed as it suffers from unexplained delay and laches. In the facts of the present case, we do not propose to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited v. District Board, Bhojpur and ors., reported in AIR 1993 SC 802 and to be more precise, on the observations made in paragraph 13 of the Judgment. The Supreme Court has held that dismissal of belated and stale claim is not a rule of law, but is a rule of practice and whether to condone the delay or otherwise, would be a matter of discretion. In the given fact situation, the observations made in the said Judgment do not advance the case of the petitioner any further. In the peculiar facts of the present case, as stated hereinabove, we do not deem it appropriate to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner. 7. In the result, the petition is summarily dismissed. A. P. DESHPANDE, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. ssm.