IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 3612 OF 1990 Nandkishore L. Mehta... ...... ......Plaintiff. V/s Mah. Tele Nigam Ltd. & Ors. ...... ......Defendants. Ms.Pooja Parekh, Adv. for the plaintiff. Ms.S.I.Shah, Adv. for the defendants. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 23.6.08 PC: Learned counsel for defendant places on record various orders passed by learned Single Judges of this Court in identical matters involving dispute in regard to telephone charges and a prayer is made to pass identical order in the present suit and dispose of the suit as has been done by earlier orders. Reliance is placed on the orders dated 31.1.08, 25.10.07 and 25.10.07 in Suit Nos.3431/91, 225/90 and 800/91 respectively. By the present suit plaintiff is challenging the bill in respect of telephone charges claimed by MTNL being excessive. Dispute so raised is squarely covered by the provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act requiring reference of the dispute to arbitration in view of the mandate of section 7(b) of the act as interpreted by Apex Court in a case reported in AIR 1996 SC 1545. The dispute raised i the present suit need to be referred to arbitration. 1 The Central Government shall notify arbitrator before whom the present dispute will be tried and decided. Plaintiff shall intimate the competent authority of the Central Government to take immediate steps to notify the arbitrator in terms of section 7(b) of the act. Such notification shall be issued within 12 weeks from today. 2. Arbitrator so appointed shall conclude the arbitration proceedings as expeditiously as possible and at rate within a period of six months from the date he enters upon the arbitration. 3. It is made clear that all contentions raised in the present suit are left open to be agitated before the arbitrator. Suit is thus dispose of in above terms. Plaintiff shall be entitled to refund of court-fees as permissible under the rules. 23.6.08 2