IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16643 of 2010(E)
1. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED, REGD. OFFICE AT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASHRAF KOORIYIL,
... Respondent
2. KOLIKKARA COMMUNICATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :31/05/2010
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 16643 of 2010
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 31st day of May, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
In respect of a dispute regarding crediting of an amount of Rs.
106/- available in the account of the 1st respondent with the petitioner,
the 1st respondent approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum. The petitioner raised a contention that the same is not
maintainable before the Forum, since the remedy of the 1st respondent
lies in raising a dispute for arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian
Telegraph Act. But, by Ext. P 4 order, the Forum decided in favour of
the 1st respondent. The petitioner challenged the same before the
State Commission raising the same contention. By an elaborate
order, Ext. P6, the Commission found that the complaint is
maintainable since Section 7B is not attracted to the dispute between
the petitioner and the 1st respondent and dismissed the appeal. The
petitioner is challenging the same.
I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner
insofar as the petitioner has got an effective alternate remedy by
way of filing a revision before the National Commission. Therefore,
without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[TRUE COPY]
P.S TO JUDGE.