THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.17192 of 2010 ORDER: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed} This Writ Petition is filed assailing the order, dated 19.4.2010 passed by the 1st respondent in FASR No.1641 of 2010 affirming the order dated 17.3.2010 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad. The writ petitioner herein filed a complaint against the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, for a direction to withdraw telephone bills which were wrongly issued for excess amount and restore the telephone service, besides damages and costs. The District Forum having relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan[1], returned the complaint directing the complainant to invoke Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant preferred an appeal before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, on the ground that the District Forum did not deal with Section 2 (1), 3 and 6 of the Consumer Protection Act nor the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Fair Air Engineers Pvt., Limited Vs. N.K. Modi[2] and therefore, the latter decision of the Supreme Court (1st cited), is per in curium and that the District Forum had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint of the petitioner. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the appeal. The appellate authority held that in General Manager Telecom (1st cited), the Supreme Court considered the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act vis-à-vis Consumer Protection Act and upheld the procedure mentioned in Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act wherein provision for arbitration of disputes have been introduced and the said aspect was not considered in earlier decisions. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The petitioner-complainant filed the complaint against the BSNL for a direction to withdraw the telephone bills, which were wrongly billed and restore the telephone service, besides damages and costs. The District Forum returned the complaint on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In appeal also, the State Forum confirmed the order of the District Forum. Now, the question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the District Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the petitioner? Admittedly, both the Forums placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court (1st cited) and returned the complaint. It is relevant to extract the said judgment, which reads as under: “In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred.” Section 7 B of the Telegraph Act deals with Arbitration of Disputes, which reads as under: (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section. (2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub- Section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court. Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules. Since the case on hand pertains to excess billing of telephone calls, under the Indian Telegraph Act, there is a procedure for arbitration for redressal of such disputes between the consumer and the telegraph authority. In view of the aforesaid provisions as contemplated under the Telegraph Act and while keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in General Manager (cited supra 1), upholding the procedure mentioned in Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, the approach of the petitioner is not proper. Therefore, we are of the opinion that both the Forums have rightly returned the complaint for proper presentation before the appropriate forum. Hence, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) ________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH,J) 19th July 2010 RRB [1] AIR 2010 SC 90 [2] AIR 1997 SC 533