IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 2214 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- A.SHAMSUDEEN, AGED 48 YEARS, MADAYIL VEEDU, MANAKKARA, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS : ----------------------- 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, OFFICE OF CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, B.S.N.L., KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ACCOUNTS OFFICER (IMPCS), OFFICE OF G.M.(T.D.) B.S.N. KOLLAM. 3. TAHASILDAR (R.R) KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 &R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL MR.MATHEWS K.PHILIP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JVT T. R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No. 2214 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 04th day of March 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein was a subscriber of BSNL Mobile phone connection bearing No.9447039501. It was a post paid connection which the petitioner obtained from BSNL in the year 2003. According to the petitioner he was remitting the monthly bills without any default. In 2003, the petitioner lost his mobile phone which was informed to the authorities of the BSNL and finally the connection was disconnected also. 2. The grievance raised in the writ petition is regarding the balance payment sought for by Exts.P3 and P4 to the tune of Rs.19,969/-. According to the petitioner, he is not liable for any such amount. W.P.(C) No.2214 of 2010 -2- 3. The respondent has filed detailed counter affidavit explaining the billing of various amounts so as to reflect the balance payable by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Exts.R1(a) to R1(c) cannot be accepted on its face value because of various aspects. 5. Since there are various subsisting disputes between parties the proper remedy is to refer the matter for arbitration under Sec.7(B) of the Telegraph Act. Therefore, appropriate action will be taken by the concerned authority to refer the matter for the consideration by the properly appointed Arbitrator. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till the matter is decided by the Arbitrator the demand may be kept in abeyance. The learned Standing Counsel for the BSNL submitted that the petitioner will have to make the payment towards entire demand as a precondition for making the reference also. W.P.(C) No.2214 of 2010 -3- 6. In the light of the fact the petitioner is disputing the entire amount demanded, it may not be proper to direct him to deposit the whole amount now. Therefore the petitioner will make a deposit of Rs.5,000/- before the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks. The cost of arbitration etc. will be governed by the precedents in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T. R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE Jvt