IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 21124 of 2004(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SIVARAM.C., S/O.MUKUNDAN UNNI, IV/376, JANANEE, TEMPLE ROAD, PAZHAYANNUR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.PRASUN.S RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, THRISSUR. 2. M.P.YOYAK, ARBITRATOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE P.G.M. TELECOM, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 016. 3. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., DEPARTMENT OF TELE COMMUNICATION, THRISSUR. 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, WADAKKANCHERY. 5. THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, PAZHAYANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKER, SC, BSNL FOR R1TO5 SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.21124/2004 2 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE BILL No.77593571 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2001. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT ON O.P.NO.12839/2002 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DATED 14.5.2002. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a): COPY OF NOTICE NO.ARB/FC/PAZHAYANNUR/495110/2003 DATED 28-10-2003 SERVED ON THE PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE. EXT.R3(b): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 9TH JANUARY 2004. EXT.R3(c): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25TH FEBRUARY 2004, NOTIFYING THE NEXT SITTING FOR FINAL HEARING ON 5TH MARCH 2004. EXT.R3(d): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.12.2001 ISSUED BY THE AO CLARIFYING THE ISSUE. EXT.R3(e): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.8.2003 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.21124 of 2004 ================== Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 award passed by the arbitrator under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The petitioner disputed a telephone bill issued to the petitioner which was referred for arbitration under Section 7B of the Act. Although, before the arbitrator, initially the petitioner appeared, subsequently, the petitioner did not appear and therefore the contention of the petitioner as contained in the writ petition filed by the petitioner himself for referring the matter to arbitrator under Section 7B, was considered and ultimately the bill was confirmed. That award is under Challenge before me. 2. The contention raised is that the bill contained a mistake and earlier also the BSNL had committed the very same mistake. Therefore the arbitrator should have held that the bill was mistakenly issued is the contention raised. I have gone through Ext.P4 award. The same is passed giving elaborate reasons, considering all aspects of the matter. The same runs into six pages. It is very stylishly written also as W.P(C)No.21124 of 2004 - 2 - if it was a judgment of a court. This court has in the decision of Union of India v. Pandit [1996 (2) KLT 301] held that where the arbitrator has passed orders giving reasons and the reasons fully support his conclusion, the High Court again in exercise of powers under Article 226 interfere with such orders. In this case, the amount involved is also comes to only about Rs.3000. I am satisfied that the ratio of the above said decision clearly applies to the facts of this case. Therefore, following that judgment this writ petition is dismissed upholding Ext.P4. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs