IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6706 of 2002 PRADHAN JWALA PRASAD Versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.&ORS ----------- 9 23.12.2009. Heard the petitioner and respondent BSNL authorities. The petitioner has prayed for quashing arbitral award dated 11.9.2001, passed by the Deputy General Manager (Operation) cum Arbitrator, appointed by letter no. 13-4/4(4)/98 - TR/4 dated 17.11.1998 of the Assistant Director General (TR), for determination of the dispute relating to Telephone Numbers 0612-261674 and 0612- 263500. The petitioner has further prayed for direction to the respondent to settle the dispute as to the local calls on the basis of the Secret Observation Report, (annexure 2) and the telephone calls (local) recorded during the first six months of the year 1998, (annexure 3) and for refund/adjustment of the excess amount paid by the petitioner to the respondents. The case is now confined to Telephone number 0612- 261674 as bill in respect of Phone number 0612-263500 has been paid. The dispute relates to raising of 42 bills from 15.9.1992 to 15.7.1999. The case of petitioner is that bills of certain periods are such which would assume talking on the telephone for more than half day continuously. The petitioner alleges that the bills placed are highly excessive and respondents even granted rebate to the extent of 50 % in respect of 8 bills out of 42 disputed bills. The petitioner sates that he had come from abroad after staying for 15 years and there would - 2 - be no occasion for him to use the phone so excessively. He submits that the arbitrator had not considered the Secret observation report and the Telephone calls recorded during the first 6 months of year 1998, annexure 3. He also did not constructively construed the facts that 8 out of 42 bills were also found to be excessive by the CGMT. He submits that reference to the Jeevak Heart Hospital & Research Institute Private Limited, Patna in the arbitral award was unnecessary as the same was established in August, 1998, whereas phone calls in question relates back to the period 1992 to 97. Thus the phone calls could not have been used for hospital purposes. The petitioner contends that it is an admitted position that as against the total bill of Rs. Rs.8, 75,608/- raised by the BSNL for periods in question, already a sum to the tune of Rs. 5,07,340/- has bee paid. According to the petitioner, he has paid much more than the actual bill that ought to have been charged. However, according to the BSNL still a sum of Rs. 3,69,302/- is outstanding. The petitioner by drawing attention to annexures- 10 and 11 states that it is a common knowledge that wires are pilfered, illegal access are made to the telephone connections of law abiding citizens. Then excessive calls are added to the telephones of innocent customers making them a scape goat. In view of the submissions of the parties, this Court is inclined to allow another opportunity to the petitioner to put forth their case before the arbitrataor, who may be appointed afresh under the provisions of section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act or the relevant - 3 - law, provided the petitioner makes a deposit of Rs.30,000/- with the BSNL. The Arbitrator, so appointed, would hear the parties and make the award, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order . In case, the Arbitrator finds that the petitioner has paid excess amount, the same would be refunded to him. On the other hand, in case amounts are found due, the same ought to be deposited by the petitioner. The authorities would not insist for further payment on the basis of bills in dispute, till the mater is decided afresh by Arbitrator in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J).