IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4913 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JOSEY, S/O. ANTONY, AGED 49 YEARS, PLAVELIL HOUSE, EAST PAVADY, KOLLENGODE-678 606, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED,PALAKKAD DIVISION, PIN-678014. 2. ACCOUNTS OFFICER (TR-II), OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, PALAKKAD DIVISION-678014. 3. TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL FOR R1 & R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL FOR R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 4913 OF 2008 ----------------------------- DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the subscriber of a telephone connection installed in his house. He is seriously aggrieved by the demand of Rs.1,65,530/- made by the 3rd respondent vide Exhibit P6. Referring to Exhibit P1 series it is contended by the petitioner that the monthly bills never used to exceed Rs.1,000/=. Therefore the demand currently made could either be resultant upon a mistake or could even possibly be on account of manipulation by some third person. 2. On instructions, Shri Mathews K.Philip, the learned counsel for the BSNL submits that ISD facility was made available to the telephone in question with effect from 17.2.2007. Apparently the call charges registered a steep hike thereafter. He further submits that ISD calls were made from the said telephone. Therefore the meter has correctly registered the calls made. W.P.(C)No.4913/08 2 3. There is serious dispute regarding the demand made by the respondents. In my view, the appropriate course is to refer this dispute to an arbitrator. At the same time, I take note of the submission made by Mr.Mathews K.Philip that the petitioner may first verify the detailed Bill from the Office of the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks from today and if the petitioner is desirous of getting a copy, he shall be supplied with copies of the same. If he is still dissatisfied with the Bill, it is open to him to raise objection to the same. Thereupon the dispute will be referred to an arbitrator in terms of section 7B of the Telegraph Act. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of in the following terms. 1) The petitioner will be supplied with copies of the detailed bills for the period in question on requisition within a period of two weeks from today. 2) If the petitioner has objection to the same, he may present his objections in writing within two weeks thereafter. 3) The objection will be treated as a dispute and should be referred to the appropriate arbitrator under Section 7B of the Telegraph Act. W.P.(C)No.4913/08 3 4.) The arbitrator will try to give an award as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of nine months from the date of reference. 5) Enforcement of the demand under Exhibit P6 shall be kept in abeyance, provided the petitioner pays 20% of the demand made under Exhibit P6, along with the objections which he may prefer as permitted under clause (2) above. V.GIRI, JUDGE. dsn