THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16640 OF 2003 DATED: 12.11.2010 Between : The General Manger, Hyderabad, Telecom District, Suryalok Complex, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And Smt. Sumita Mukharjee, R/o. Plot No.162/III, Saraswathinagar Colony, Secunderabad. … Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16640 OF 2003 ORDER : This writ petition is filed by BSNL seeking a declaration that the award dated 20.03.2003 made by the 2nd respondent Arbitrator under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is arbitrary and illegal. The arbitration was taken up on a dispute raised by the 1st respondent herein with regard to the Bill dated 1.4.1993 for Rs.1,01,123/- in respect of Telephone No.861892 (new Telephone No.7861892). It was the case of the 1st respondent herein that the said telephone was allotted to her for residential purpose in the year 1991 and that she had been paying the bills regularly. It was alleged by the 1st respondent that the Bill dated 1.4.1993 for Rs.1,01,123/- was issued wrongly and that she never made the calls specified therein. It was pleaded that she had no relatives in U.S.A. and she used her telephone very rarely. After due investigation, it was found that the telephone in question was used to make ISD calls to U.S.A. mostly to Astro Information Compatibility and that the telephone was working from the Telephone Exchange where the bills of STD/ISD calls were made available and that all the calls were made from the telephone of the 1st respondent only. It was also found that there was no scope for tapping the line by the Lineman since the STD/ISD facility could be activated or deactivated by the subscriber herself by using a four-dizit secret code. Having considered the said report, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned Award dated 20.03.2003 with directions as under: “I order that the complainant may be exempted from charging of all ISD calls during 15.1.1993 to 15.3.2003 from the bill dated 1.4.1993. But no exemption is considered for ISD calls during the period of 15-3-1993 to 15-5-1993 in the bill dated 1.6.1993 as the complainant failed to lock STD/ISD by using dynamic STD locking facility even after observing ISD calls in the previous bill, which are disputed by the complainant. ” Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the BSNL (Hyderabad Telecom District). I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. The impugned Award shows that the 2nd respondent Arbitrator on consideration of the material available on record found that the recording of STD/ISD calls by the Department were in order. While observing that by making Astro calls, no conversation was possible in between the ‘calling party’ and ‘called party’ and some pre-recorded message pertaining to Astrology could only be heard by the caller, it was concluded by the 2nd respondent that the calls in question were definitely made from the telephone of the 1st respondent either by some of the family members or by anybody else. However the 2nd respondent has strangely concluded that the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the 1st respondent herein and accordingly the directions extracted above were issued exempting the 1st respondent from charging the ISD calls for the period from 15.1.1993 to 15.3.2003. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was absolutely no justifiable reason for granting such exemption ignoring the categorical finding that there was no malfunctioning of the telephone in question. It is also contended that since the 2nd respondent Arbitrator had failed to assign any reasons for granting such exemption, the impugned Award cannot be sustained. As could be seen from the impugned Award, absolutely no reasons are forthcoming for granting the exemption to the 1st respondent in respect of ISD calls made during 15.1.1993 to 15.3.2003. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while making an Award under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Arbitrator is required to record the reasons in support of his decision. In the absence of such reasons, it cannot be said that there is any determination of dispute as contemplated under Section 7B of the Act { vide M.L. JAGGI v. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED (AIR 1996 SC 2476) }. Since it is apparent that the impugned Award in which the 2nd respondent directed to issue revised bill exempting the ISD calls during 15.1.1993 to 15.3.2003 is not supported by any reasons, the same is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Accordingly, the impugned Award is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction that a fresh Award shall be passed taking into consideration the report of the investigation already made with regard to the telephone in question. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 12.11.2010 gbs