http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER, GOA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: V.S. DEMPO & CO. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1545            JT 1996 (3)   669  1996 SCALE  (3)124

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Appeals are taken on board.      These appeals by special arise from the judgment of the Bombay High  Court, Panaji  Bench made  on March 31, 1995 in C.W.P. No.398/94  and batch. The facts relate to the dispute raised by  the respondents  for two  bills, one for a sum of Rs.99,196/- and  the other  for Rs.71,280/-.  The appellant- Union  of   India  has   taken  the  stand  that  under  the Administrative Instructions issued by it, the dispute cannot be referred  unless the  subscriber approaches the Court and the  Court   gives  the  direction  for  appointment  of  an arbitrator under  Section 7B  of the  Indian Telegraphs Act. Section 7B reads as under :      "7-B Arbitration  of Disputes :-(1)      Except   as   otherwise   expressly      provided  in   this  Act,   if  any      dispute  concerning  any  telegraph      and  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  and      shall, for  the  purposes  of  such      determination, be  referred  to  an      arbitrator appointed by the Central      Government either specially for the      determination of  that  dispute  or      generally for  the determination of      disputes under this section.      (2) The  award  of  the  arbitrator      appointed  under   sub-section  (1)      shall  be  conclusive  between  the      parties to  the dispute  and  shall      not be questioned in any court."      A reading  thereof would  indicate that  if any dispute

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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 an arbitrator. Such  determination  shall  be  referred  to  an  arbitrator appointed by  the Central Government either specifically for the determination  of  the  dispute  or  generally  for  the determination of  dispute under  this section.  The award of the arbitrator  shall be  conclusive between  the parties to the  dispute   and  its  correctness  is  prohibited  to  be questioned in  a court of law. It would, otherwise, be clear that any  dispute regarding the billing of the refer and the liability on  a subscriber  thereon when  its correctness is disputed, should  be  referred  to  the  arbitrator  by  the Central Government.  The arbitrator’s  award shall be final. In a recent judgment, considering the provisions of the Act, this Court has explained that when the arbitrator’s award is final, it  would be  subject to  only judicial  review.  The judicial review  by the  High Court  or this  Court would be possible only  when the  arbitrator gives reasons in support of the conclusions he reaches. Be it technical or on factual basis. The  Administrative Instructions  issued by the Union of India  that the dispute shall be referred only when there is a  reference by the Court is obviously in defiance of the language used  in Section 7B. The power to refer the dispute has been  given by  the Parliament  only with  a view to see that the  authority acts  within reasonable  limits and that when  subscriber  disputes  the  correctness  of  the  meter reading or  operation  of  the  apparatus  etc.  instead  of litigating the dispute in a civil Court, it should be denied by arbitrator  under Section  7B. Obviously, the Act intends to limit  operation expeditiously without any undue delay so that the  electrical operation,  envisaged  under  the  Act, recorded to  be one  of the  public revenue,  should not  be postponed due  to the  pendency of  the  proceedings.  Under those circumstances,  we are of the view that the High Court is right  in directing  that the  authority under the Act is enjoined to  make reference  under Section  7B  without  any direction by  the Court  and  if  need  be  it  is  for  the subscriber to approach the Court.      The  appeals   are  accordingly  dismissed  with  above directions. No costs.