IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 10561 of 2008(G) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ B.S. BHASI, SARADA BUILDINGS, UNIVERSAL ROAD, NEAR PRESS CLUB, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, LIC BUILDING COMPLEX, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-4. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADVS.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI R.2 BY ADV.SRI.V.R.KESAVAKAIMAL, SC, BSNL R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.RANI DIOTHIMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 10561/2008(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BDY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23/07/2004. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16/02/2006. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17/02/2006. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17/02/2006. P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20/03/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.10561/2008-G ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner approached this Court challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated as per Ext.P6 wherein an amount of Rs.87,117/- is shown as tele-dues. 2. The petitioner is the Chairman of Universal Group World which is running several educational institutions. The establishment had 11 B.S.N.L telephone connections which were disconnected prior to 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that the bills issued by them have been disputed in time and, without any adjudication, the Revenue Recovery proceedings have been initiated. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Nagaraj Narayanan therefore, submitted that the matter has to be directed to be sent for adjudication under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent who submitted that the bills were never disputed by the petitioner. The telephone connections were disconnected due to non-payment of W.P.(C). No.10561/2008 -:2:- dues during the period 2001-2004. The details of arrears are shown in page (2) of the counter affidavit. It is further pointed out that the dispute, if any, had to be raised within 15 days of the receipt of the bills. It is also their contention that the matter is pending with the Revenue Recovery Authority which cannot be recalled for consideration in the Adalath or for resolution through Arbitration. 4. The documents produced in the writ petition show that Ext.P1 is the copy of the order of the year 2004, whereby the petitioner was directed to remit an amount of Rs.74,369/-. Ext.P2 is the reply given by the petitioner dated 16/02/2006 where an early reply dated 07/09/2005 is mentioned. The petitioner sought for a final decision on the disputed matter by Ext.P2, which was followed by another letter Ext.P3. The Deputy General Manager (Telephone Revenue) communicated their decision by Exts.P4 and P5. The stand taken is that inspite of sending all the pending 26 bills for making payment, there was no response from the petitioner in time and even though the petitioner offered to make a payment, that was also not made by W.P.(C). No.10561/2008 -:3:- him. It is in these circumstances the Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated. 5. From the pleadings of the second respondent and from Exts.P4 and P5, what is revealed is that the rates have been calculated in terms of the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rules, 1951 and there is no excess demand evidently. This is a case where the replies Exts.P4 and P5 were issued by the second respondent in the year 2006 itself. The petitioner approached this Court only after receipt of the Revenue Recovery Notice of the year 2006 by filing this writ petition on 24/03/2008. Therefore, there is delay in filing the writ petition also. In the light of the contentions raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent that the bills were not disputed within the period provided in the bills itself, I find force in the submission that the provisions of Section 7B of the Act are not attracted. The petitioner allowed the matter to become final and was sitting idle throughout except by submitting representations during the year 2005 and 2006. But, final replies were not challenged in time. In view of W.P.(C). No.10561/2008 -:4:- the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to refer the matter for arbitration even though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently prayed that an adjudication is required for the ends of justice. 6. This Court, by an interim order dated 28/03/2008 directed the petitioner to remit Rs.40,000/- of the demand in two equal instalments. It is stated that the said amount has been paid already. The petitioner will remit the balance amount by six monthly instalments starting from January, 2011 to wipe off the liability. The said instalments will be paid before 10th of every month. If there is a consecutive default for a period of two months, and if the amount remains unpaid, the third respondent-Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery) can initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms