IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6805 of 2006 UPENDRA NATH VERMA, EX M.P., SON OF LATE RAM BALAK SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- JANAKPUR, P.O.- BUNIYADGANJ, P.S. MANPUR (MUFFASIL) DISTT. GAYA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RAJA BAZAR, BAILEY ROAD, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT OF PATNA :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL (TR) MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT DEPARTMENT OF TELECOM, TR SECTION 914, SANCHAR BHAWAN, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL (TR), MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT DEPARTMENT OF TELECOM, TR SECTION, 914, SANCHAR BHAWAN, 20, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110001. 3. DDG (SPF) B.S.N.L. STATESMAN HOUSE NEW DELHI. 4. CAO (PIL), M.T.N.L. O/O GM (TR), PIL CELL, EASTERN COURT JANPATH, NEW DELHI. 5. PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, B.S.N.L. TELECOM, DISTRICT PATNA- 800001. 6. G M (A&C) OFFICE OF THE C.G.M.T. BIHAR TELECOM CIRCLE, PATNA. 7. A.O (TR) OFFICE OF G.M.T.D. GAYA. 8. AGM © OFFICE OF THE CGMT BIHAR TELECOM CIRCLE PATNA. 9. SHREE RAM KRISHNA AGRAWAL, ARBITRATOR-CUM-AREA D.G.M. (E), PTD TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, RAJENDRA NAGAR, PATNA-16 :---RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5. 11.05.2011. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Inspite of adjournment allowed to the counsel for the B.S.N.L. under orders dated 11.4.2011 no counter affidavit has been filed, in the circumstances, the matter is considered on the basis of the materials available on record. Petitioner, an ex M.P., is aggrieved by the order of the Arbitrator-cum-ADGM (East) dated 12.4.2006, 2 Annexure-1, whereunder he has been directed to pay the outstanding dues of Rs. 1,44,696/- which is said to have been incurred by the petitioner while he served as M.P. and enjoyed the facility of telephone at his New Delhi and constituency residence vide Telephone No. 3792495 and 20768. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner with reference to the representation made by the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited under representation dated 25.08.2001, Annexure-4 that there was no outstanding dues against the petitioner for his Telephone No. 20768 provided at the constituency residence of the petitioner. Petitioner, however, has not produced any material to suggest that the bills referred to in Paragraph-20 of the writ petition was also inclusive of the free calls admissible to the Member of Parliament. From Paragraph-20 itself it is quite evident that the bills dated 25.12.1995 25.02.1996, 25.04.1996 was in the printed form over which it was written that the calls are over and above free quota admissible to the subscriber. The contents of Paragraph-20 of the writ petition is further corroborated from the representation made by the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited vide representation dated 25.08.2001, Annexure-4, as thereunder also against Delhi Telephone No. 3792495 of the petitioner outstanding dues of Rs. 78010/- has been shown against the five bills indicated in Paragraph-20. It 3 is, thus, quite evident that the outstanding dues of the petitioner for the Delhi Telephone is Rs. 78010/-. While passing the order dated 12.04.2006, Annexure-1 the Arbitrator-cum-ADGM (East) has not noticed the contents of the letter of the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited dated 25.08.2001 which is an official document and as the arbitrator has not considered the same his judgment suffers from the vice of non-consideration of relevant material and for such non-consideration of the relevant material i.e. letter of the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited dated 25.08.2001, I set aside the order dated 12.04.2006, Annexure-1 and remit back the matter to the Arbitrator-cum-ADGM (East) to revisit the outstanding dues of the petitioner in the light of the representation made by the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited under letter dated 25.08.2001, Annexure-4 to this petition in accordance with law. 3. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)