JUDGMENT
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.
1. Heard the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel.
2. There is no merit in this appeal at all. A telephone subscriber was slapped with some bills, which according to him were excessive. A detailed enquiry was undergone and it was found by the Department that the apparatus, lines and the telephone were perfectly alright. However, the said subscriber, in collusion with some accounting staff, managed to tamper with the bill electronically and in the process, duped the Department of a sum of Rs.3,71,685/-. There was a perfect checking done of the apparatus which was found to be faultless. It was only in the accounts department that the fraud was perpetrated. The petitioner then also went to the extent of giving an undertaking before the Department that he would pay the arrears amount of Rs.1,73,807/- in 40 regular instalments, probably having realised that he was at fault. Be that as it may, the petitioner obviously went back on his undertaking and after he was slapped with the two additional bills, approached this Court by way of writ petition. The following is the prayer in the writ petition:
“It is therefore just and necessary that this Hon’ble Court should be pleased to call for the records in No.TRA/KKD/23038/14 dated 11.10.1995 on the file of the second respondent, issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, quash the same and direct the respondents to restore the telephone No.TRA/23038/14 belonging to the petitioner and pass such further and other orders as may be deemed fit.”
3. Before making this prayer, the petitioner had averred in paragraph 10 of his affidavit as stated below:
“In cases of some disputes, between parties, there will be documents on both sides put forthing their respective cases. Even in the case of Electricity and water metering the matters are available with the user. But, in the case of telephone, all apparatus are available only in the office of the respondents. So, they are all computerised and highly technical. Further, excess billing is not a dispute concerning telegraph line, appliances or apparatus, as the respondents cannot take the plea of the arbitration Clause in Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 (Act 13 of 1885).
4. The learned Single Judge took a view, and in our opinion correctly that this could not be a case where the demand notice could be quashed. He found on the facts that there was a complete enquiry gone into at the instance of the telephone department and that there was nothing to find fault with the bills which were slapped against the petitioner. The petitioner however very strangely raises a plea that this matter should have been referred to the Arbitration under Section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraphs Act. In this, the petitioner had taken a complete somersault insofar as the averments in paragraph 10 which we have already quoted. The learned Single Judge rightly held that this was not a dispute pertaining to the telegraph line, appliance or apparatus and this was merely a fraud played by the petitioner for which he could not insist on arbitration.
5. In our view, the learned Single Judge is absolutely right in denying the arbitration proceedings to the petitioner. Before us also, the learned counsel initially towed the same line of plea of referring the matter to arbitration under section 7(B) of the Indian Telegraphs Act however, we do not find any merits in that plea particularly because of the observations of the Supreme Court in the decision (TELECOME DISTRICT MANAGER, GOA -vs- V.S.DEMPO) more particularly in paragraph 2 interpreting section 7(B) where the Court says as under:
“A reading thereof would indicate that 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 an Arbitrator.”
6. There is a clear-cut finding and a correct finding according to us, by the learned Single Judge that the dispute does not pertain to any of these factors. The writ appeal is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only). WAMP No.3917 of 2002 is closed.