Section 7-B (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885= Under Section 7-B (1) of the Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.4508 of 2013

Dated: 14.02.2013

Between:

P.Roy Reddy
                                                                                     ..   Petitioner.
    and

The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Telecommunications,
New Delhi,
and others.
                                                                                   ..   Respondents.


Counsel for the Petitioner:   Mr. J.Uga Narasimha   
                                            
Counsel for respondent No.1: Ms. Baby Rani for
                                               Mrs. S.Nanda,
                                               Standing Counsel for Central Government

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4: Mr. B. Devanand,
                                                       Standing Counsel for BSNL.

















                                        


The Court made the following:


ORDER:

          The inaction of respondent No.2 and its functionaries in initiating proceedings under Section 7-B (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short ‘the Act’), for deciding the dispute raised by the petitioner with regard to the alleged excess billing relating to telephone connection No.27112295, is assailed in this writ petition.

          I have heard Mr. J.Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and  Mr. B. Devanand, learned  counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

          The petitioner is the subscriber of respondent No.2 with the abovementioned telephone number.  
He was provided with internet connection on 08.06.2010. 
The petitioner received bill dated 06.11.2010 for the period from 01.10.2010 to 31.10.2010 for an amount of Rs.22,237/-, wherein a sum of Rs.21,542.38 ps. is shown as current bill amount. 
On receipt of the said bill, the petitioner made a representation on 06.12.2010 to respondent Nos.2 to 4, wherein he has protested against the bill amount and requested for verification of the reason for such excessive billing while expressing doubt that as the respondents themselves have pointed out that the customers are advised to change the broardband password frequently, there is ample scope of misuse of internet facilities by third parties.  
The said representation was replied to by respondent No.3 on 13.12.2010 to the effect that the usage of internet is absolutely from the petitioner’s end and that there is no scope for others to misuse the petitioner’s internet facility.  
The petitioner has again received another bill dated 06.01.2011 for the period from 01.12.2010 to 31.12.2010, wherein a sum of Rs.34,338/- was shown as dues and the current bill amount was quantified at Rs.3,138.30 ps.  
The petitioner has got the internet facility withdrawn.  For non-payment of the disputed bill amounts, the respondents have disconnected the telephone connection.  Thereafter, respondent No.4 has issued letter, dated 10.04.2012, to the petitioner, wherein it was informed that an amount of Rs.32,095/- was payable by the petitioner. 
 The petitioner has addressed letter, dated 27.04.2012, to respondent No.4, wherein while disputing his liability to pay the demanded amount, he requested for reference of the dispute for arbitration under Section 7-B of the Act.  
The grievance of the petitioner is that while on the one hand respondent No.4 has displayed absolute indifference to his request for reference of the dispute for arbitration, letter dated 10.04.2012 addressed by him has threatened the petitioner of registering a criminal case for recovery of dues.  
The petitioner also stated in the affidavit that on 02.02.2013, four officials from the office of respondent No.3 visited his residence and told him to come and meet their superior officer at Tirumalagiri, which the petitioner has declined.  
In this writ petition, the petitioner has, therefore, questioned not only the inaction of respondent No.4 in referring the dispute for arbitration, but also of the highhanded action of the subordinates of respondent No.3 in hurling threats to the petitioner of registration of criminal case and also deploying pressure tactics to recover the disputed amount.

          Under Section 7-B (1) of the Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration.

          As noted above, on 27.04.2012 the petitioner himself is stated to have requested respondent No.4 to refer the dispute for arbitration under the abovementioned provision.  
If such a request was made in writing, I do not find any justification in respondent No.4 not referring the dispute for arbitration. 
If the allegation made by the petitioner that respondent No.3 has been taking coercive steps such as threatening to register a criminal case and sending his subordinates to the house of the petitioner demanding payment, is true, such a conduct on the part of respondent No.3 cannot be appreciated. 
If any subscriber is in arrears, respondent No.2 and its functionaries shall strictly follow the prescribed procedure for recovery of the dues.  
Being a Government of India Company, it does not behove well for its functionaries to act outside or in excess of their legal authority in the matter of recovery of dues. 
 Since the petitioner has raised a serious dispute regarding his liability to pay the arrears, respondent No.4 ought to have referred the dispute for arbitration and await the decision of the arbitrator before venturing to recover the arrears.  
It is not in dispute that both the telephone and internet connections are under disconnection.  
Under these facts and circumstances, it is appropriate that respondent No.4 refers the dispute raised by the petitioner for arbitration under Section 7-B (1) of the Act. 
He shall also ensure that the arbitrator adjudicates the dispute and passes award within one month from the date of reference after hearing both the parties. 
Respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall await the award of the arbitrator.  In the event the award is made against the petitioner, they may recover the arrears subject to the right of the petitioner to question the award.  
For recovering the dues, respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall strictly follow the procedure prescribed for such recovery.

          Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
    
          As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.5630 of 2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.


          _______________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J
14.02.2013
v v


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.