.{1}. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1651 OF 2007 Narendra Mafatlal Mehta. ..Petitioner. Versus Maharashtra Telephone Nigam Limited, and 2 Ors. ..Respondents. .. D.A. Alwadi, Adv. with N.M.Shah, Adv. for the Petitioner. Ms.S.I. Shah, Adv. for the Respondent. .. CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 11, 2008. DATED : FEBRUARY 11, 2008. DATED : FEBRUARY 11, 2008. P.C.: (PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) P.C.: (PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) P.C.: (PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent-MTNL. 2. There is dispute in respect of excess bill pertaining to Telephone No.8281610 of the petitioner. The said matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Arbitrator. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no reasons at all have been given by the Arbitrator while passing the impugned award. .{2}. 3. We have perused the said order whereby the impugned award came to be passed and we find that no reasons have been given therein by the Arbitrator for passing the award in question. The Supreme Court in the case of M.L.Jaggi vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam M.L.Jaggi vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam M.L.Jaggi vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., and others Ltd., and others Ltd., and others reported in AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2476 2476 2476 held that, "when the arbitrator decides the dispute under Section 7B, he is enjoined to give reasons in support of his decision since it is final and it cannot be questioned in a Court of law. The only obvious remedy available to the aggrieved person against the award is judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the reasons are not given, it would be difficult for the High Court to adjudge as to under what circumstances the arbitrator came to his conclusion that the amount demanded by the Department is correct or the amount disputed by the citizen is unjustified. The reasons would indicate as to how the mind of the arbitrator was applied to the dispute and how he arrived at the decision. The High Court, though does not act in exercising judicial review as a Court of appeal but within narrow limits of judicial review it would .{3}. consider the correctness and legality of the award. The questions are technical matters. But nonetheless, the reasons in support of his conclusion should be given." 4. In view of the above, we feel it proper to set aside the said award and to remand the matter back for reconsideration. Ms.Shah the learned Counsel for the respondent-MTNL, on instructions, has stated that the very same Arbitrator who passed the impugned award is very much available and that he will reconsider the matter afresh and thereafter pass the necessary orders. The said statement is accepted. The impugned award is set-aside. The matter to be reconsidered afresh by the Arbitrator and thereafter necessary orders shall be passed in accordance with law. 5. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.]