IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 10418 of 2006(M)
1. SHERLY VIJAY VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (TR-W),
For Petitioner :SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN, SC, BSNL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :11/09/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 10418 OF 2006
====================
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The dispute between the petitioner and the BSNL was
subject matter of arbitration and that resulted in Ext.P10
award against the petitioner. By the award, the Arbitrator
held that for the deficiency in service, a reduction of
Rs.5,000/- should be given and accordingly the balance due
from the petitioner has been quantified at Rs.26,343/-. It is
submitted that in terms of the interim order dated 28.4.06,
the petitioner has remitted Rs.5,000/- and therefore the
balance left is only Rs.21,343/-.
2. Impugning the award of the Arbitrator, the
learned counsel for the writ petitioner would content that,
the bill in question is for the period 1/10/04 to 30/11/04,
when Rs.38,843/- was demanded. According to him, for the
period prior to and subsequent thereto, the billing always
WPC 10418/06
: 2 :
was in the range of Rs.1500 to Rs.2000. Learned counsel
would submit that it is only on account of either the defect
in the system or pilferage of calls that such huge amount
came to be charged. He would submit that the calls were
not made from the telephone and therefore, the finding of
the Arbitrator to the contrary, cannot be sustained. It is
submitted that the department did not follow the procedure
as laid down in the guidelines and therefore, for that reason
also, the award cannot be sustained.
3. As regards the question whether the calls in fact
originated from the telephone of the petitioner, the
Arbitrator has come to a finding against the petitioner with
reference to the documents. The entire finding of fact in
this respect is against the petitioner. Having gone through
the award, I am not in a position to say that the finding of
the Arbitrator is perverse, or vitiated any ground that is
available for invoking judicial review. In so far as the
allegation of non compliance with the guidelines is
WPC 10418/06
: 3 :
concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for
the respondents, compliance with the guideline arises only
when a complaint has been made prior to the issue of the
impugned bill. In this case, no such complaint has been
made. Even according to the petitioner, complaint was
made only after the bill was received from the Department.
Therefore there is no occasion for the department to have
complied with the guidelines. Facts being so, the judgment
in the case of Mohan Dasa Prabhu v. Union of India
(2005(1) KLT 933) relied on by the petitioner is also
inapplicable to the facts of the case.
4. Thus, I do not find any ground to interfere with
the impugned award. The amount that is now payable by
the petitioner is Rs.21,343/- and this amount is to be paid
by him. Counsel pleads that in view of the petitioner’s
financial constraints, it will be difficult for him to pay the
amount in one lump and requested for instalment facility.
This has been opposed by the counsel for the respondents,
WPC 10418/06
: 4 :
as according to him, the amount is overdue for the last
more than three years. Be that as it may, taking into
account the over all facts of the case, I am inclined to direct
that the petitioner may remit the balance amount of
Rs.21,343/- in six equal monthly instalments. The first
instalment shall be payable on or before 1st of October 2007.
The balance five instalments will also be paid without
default on the 1st of each succeeding month thereafter. On
payment of the amount as above, the telephone connection
shall be restored to the petitioner without fastening him any
liability for the rental charges for the period subsequent to
the disconnection of the telephone.
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed
of.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp