C.W.P. No.287 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.287 of 1989 Date of Decision.07.04.2010 Adarsh Kumar Goel ........Petitioner Versus District Manager, Telecommunications, Sector 18, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Saurav Goel, Advocate for Mr. Govind Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the disconnection to a telephone connection for non-payment of demand of Rs.33,472/-, which the petitioner characterizes as whimsical, unjust and illegal. At the time when notice was issued by a Bench on 12.01.1989. there had been a direction for restoration of telephone connection. Accordingly, it appears that the telephone connection had been restored and the point that falls for consideration in this case is whether the demand for payment of Rs.33472/- was justified or not. The response to the writ petition in the reply filed through Accounts Officer is to the effect that the petitioner had already granted a rebate of Rs.10,000/- on his excess meter in complaint and on an C.W.P. No.287 of 1989 -2- investigation, it was found that meter line and equipment were working perfectly and the meter reading had also been properly done. The written statement had also taken up other issues relating to a user of the connection by a person other than the petitioner. 2. The issue involves an adjudication of factual details, which shall not be possible and there is a mechanism under the provisions of Telegraph Act under Section 7-B for an arbitral adjudication. The complaint of the petitioner against excess metering may be taken as his claim statement before an arbitrator and the arbitral process shall be instituted under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. Due notice shall be served to the petitioner to give any additional pleadings, which if so pleases and the matter shall be adjudicated in accordance with law. 3. The demand order dated 05.01.1989 is, therefore, set aside and the validity of the same shall be the subject of adjudication in the statutory arbitration as indicated above. 4. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 07, 2010 Pankaj*