IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 3947 of 2001 Between: P.V.N.L. Prabhavathi, D/o.P.Madhava Rao, H.No.16-19-176/177, Main Road, Old Guntur, Guntur Post and District, A.P., ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep. by its General Manager/Chief Accounts Officer, Telecommunications - Guntur Telecom District Guntur, Guntur District. 2 The Station House Officer, Kothapeta Police Station Guntur City, Guntur Post and District, A.P., -522002. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action the Respondent No.1 in claiming huge amounts of Telephone Bills dated:2.12.2000 Rs.14,705 and dated:16.12.2000 Rs.78795 and dated:2.01.2001 Rs.1,19,006/- (three bills amounts Rs.2,12,000) and harassing the petitioner and her family members by the 2nd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary unconsitutional and violation of fundamental rules of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 not to claim illegal Telephone bills dated:2.12.2000 Rs.14705 and dated:16.12.2000 Rs.78795 and dated:2.1.2001 for an amount of Rs.1,21,006. Total amount of Rs.2,12,000 and direct the 2nd Respondent and not to herass and arrest the petitioner and her family members illegally and to stop all their (Respondents) illegal activities against the petitioner and her family members forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.NAGESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 3947 OF 2001 ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent authority i.e., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, granted licence to him to maintain and operate STD PT booth at 10th lane, Nehru Nagar, Guntur SSA on commission basis vide telephone connection No. 249782 in the year 2000. It is stated that as per the agreement, bills have to be paid within seven days from the date of issuance of the bills. Otherwise another week time will be given for payment of the said bill with surcharge amount. It is stated that fort night bill from 16 to 30th November dated 2.12.2000 for an amount of Rs. 14,305/- was issued to the petitioner asking her to pay before 8.12.2000 or pay the same with surcharge amount of Rs. 400/- before 12.12.2000. As she failed to pay the said bill of Rs. 14,305/- her telephone was disconnected on 26.12.2000. Thereafter, another bill from 1.12.2000 to 15.12.2000 and 15.12.2000 to 26.12.2000 amounting to Rs. 78,795 and 1,21,006/- respectively, were issued for making the payment. It is further stated that amounts were also finalized requesting her to make the payment of Rs. 2,05,306/- but the said amount has not been paid. It is stated that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the licensee shall make payment as per meter calls recorded and as per Clause 14 of the Agreement, licensee will not be entitled for any rebate on account of the wrong calls or alleged excess metering. It is stated that for non-payment of amounts a complaint also has been filed before the Station House Officer, Kothapeta Police Station, Guntur City, for criminal breach of trust but so far no crime has been registered. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the first respondent has not submitted the particulars of both the bills either for Rs. 78,795/- or for Rs. 1,21,006/- and there cannot be any huge billing just for the said period of 14 and 10 days. It is stated that for ten days bill from 15.12.2000 to 26.12.2000 an amount of Rs. 1,26,000/- was due without there being any actual calls from the STD telephone booths. Therefore, it is stated that there is a dispute with regard to the accounts and actual calls made use from the STD booth. For any mischief did by the officials, the petitioner cannot be penalized and cannot be prosecuted high handedly without giving any reasonable opportunity. Counter has been filed stating that the petitioner has to pay bills as recorded in the meter and she will not be entitled for any rebate for wrong calls. Therefore, I am unable to accept the said contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. If there is any mischief committed with regard to the issuance of the said bills, the said mischief cannot be attributed to the petitioner making her liable for criminal prosecution as regards the recovery of excess bill. It is stated that as per the Judgment of the Supreme Court in M.L.JAGGI VS. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONES NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS[1] wherein a similar objection was raised with regard to the telephone bills and in that connection the Arbitrator was appointed to resolve the dispute and the Arbitrator made an award confirming the bill. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the instant case also, the first respondent having filed a civil suit O.S.No. 636/2003 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, for recovery of the said sum of Rs. 2,05,306/- along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of disconnection till the date of finalizing the suit, totaling the amount of Rs. 2,78,530/-. The Civil Court ought to have referred the matter to the Arbitrator under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act 13 of 1885. Section 7- B of the Act reads as under: “7B. Arbitration of disputes. (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 for 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 specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination or 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.” The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the Arbitration Clause applies to the persons for whose benefit the line applies or telephone is or has been provided but not to the licensee. He made an attempt to draw a distinction between the licensee and the person for whose benefit the telephone connection is provided. A perusal of Section 7-B does not indicate any difference with regard to the resolution of that dispute and the determination of dispute. Therefore, it is difficult to exclude the petitioner from within the definition of the person though she is the licensee. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that it is for the respective parties to take appropriate steps for referring the dispute for arbitration under Section 7-B of the Act either in the pending suit filed by the first respondent or by the referee of the matter independently. Unless the dispute is resolved by an Arbitration under Section 7-B, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted and no coercive steps can be taken against her. It is stated that particulars/details of the bills are not furnished. Therefore, it is just and proper to resolve the dispute by an arbitrator. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to take appropriate steps for referring the matter to an Arbitrator and till the Arbitrator resolves the dispute, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. ____________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J Date: 09.04.2008 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep. by its General Manager/Chief Accounts Officer, Telecommunications - Guntur Telecom District Guntur, Guntur District. 2 The Station House Officer, Kothapeta Police Station Guntur City, Guntur Post and District, A.P., -522002. 3.2CCs 4.2CD copies [1] AIR 1996 SC 2476