Kerala High Court
K.N. Achuthan Pillai vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 November, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1988KER140, AIR 1988 KERALA 140, (1988) 1 ARBI LR 380, (1988) 1 KER LT 41, (1988) ILR(KER) 2 KER 170, ILR (1988) 2 KER 170, (1988) 1 KER LJ 43
Author: K.T. Thomas
Bench: K.T. Thomas
ORDER K.T. Thomas, J.
1. Petitioner is the subscriber of Telephone No. 85-5350 of Kalamassary Telephone Exchange. He received Ext. P1 letter dated 26-6-1987 in which the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that there was unauthorised use of the telephone by providing an external extension and that it was without the knowledge of the telephone Department. He was therefore called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 4,400/- towards installation of two external extensions (the amount consists of Rs. 2,800/- towards rent for two external extensions and Rs. 1,600/-
towards installation charges of the extension).
The petitioner sent a reply stating that he has not provided any extension whatsoever and that he was not in need for such external extensions. Later, petitioner received a telephone bill (Ext. P3) for Rs. 4,745/-, which includes Rs. 4,400/- claimed in the earlier letter. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court with this Original petition for quashing Exts. P1 and P3.
2. It is obvious that the petitioner has disputed the stand of the Department that the petitioner has provided external extensions Telephone No. 85-5350. The said dispute arose as early as 4-7-1987, as could be seen from Ext. P2. It is not proper that the petitioner should suffer consequences of nonpayment of the said sum until the said dispute is resolved.
3. Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short 'the Act') provides a machinery and a forum for resolving at least certain types of disputes between the subscriber and the telegraph authorities. Smt. Rosamma, learned counsel representing the senior Central Government Standing Counsel contended that Section 7-B cannot take in a dispute of the nature involved in this case. The learned counsel referred me to two decisions in support of her contention. (1) In Raghubar Dayal Kanadia v. Union of India, AIR 1970 All 143 and the other in Om Oil and Oilseeds Exchange. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1977 Delhi 132. In the first mentioned decision, a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court considered the question whether the dispute relating to actual reading of meter which involves question as to whether meter had been correctly and honestly read should be determined by arbitration. The learned Judge held that such a dispute is outside the purview of Section 7-B(1) of the Act. In the second mentioned decision, the single Judge of the Delhi High Court, did not in fact hold that kinds of disputes would go outside the scope of Section 7-B of the Act. On the other hand, the observations made by the learned Judge indicate that Section 7-B provides a remedy to a subscriber. But in the special circumstances narrated on the facts of the said case, the learned Judge was not inclined to direct the party concerned to avail Section 7-B. In Raghubar Dayal Kanadia's case, the scope of Section 7-B was held to be narrow.
4. Section 7-B(1) of the Act, in my opinion, is a widely worded provision which takes in a variety of disputes as between the subscriber and the Department. The Section reads thus:
7-B. Arbitration of disputes : -- (1) Except as other-wise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, cable chamber tower appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, (Cable chamber tower) 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 arbitration appointed under Sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court".
The words "if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus, cable chamber tower appliance or apparatus" do indicate that the legislature wanted to provide a machinery for resolution of most types of disputes which usually arise in respect of use of the telegraphic facilities. This is further clear from the latter portion of the sub-section which qualifies the word dispute: "arises between the telegraph authorities and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is provided". Hence if the dispute is one concerning the line, appliance or appraratus, such dispute falls within the scope of the sub-section. "Telegraph line" is defined in Section 3(4) of the Act. It does not include a telephone receiver. But words such as "appliance" or "apparatus" for telegraphic communication would show that the disputes can pertain to them also. "Telegraph" as defined in Section 3(1) includes any appliance, instrument, material or apparatus used or capable of use for transmission or reception of sounds, etc. The word "apparatus" would include a telephone receiver. If any extension is taken from such a receiver, it becomes an appliance or part of the apparatus. Hence when a dispute arises regarding the same, it is difficult to push such a dispute outside the purview of Section 7-B.
5. Ranga Nath Misra, J. (as his Lordship then was) considered the scope of Section 7-B in Makhani Devi Banka v. Union of India, AIR 1981 Orissa 11 and held that the telephone set provided to a subscriber is an apparatus within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 7-B of the Act Another single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Usha Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd, AIR 1982 Delhi 111 observed that the expression "any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus is of wide amplitude and will take within its sweep all kinds of disputes which relate to the functioning and working of any telegraph line, apparatus or appliance". The last mentioned two decisions are in support of the view taken by me. With respect, I express my difficulty to agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge in Raghubar Dayal's case (AIR 1970 All 143),
6. I, therefore, direct the second and third respondents to refer the dispute for arbitration as provided in Section 7-B of the Act The decision of the arbitrator shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be question in any Court, It is so provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 7-B.
7. Until determination of the said dispute in the aforesaid manner, the telephone connection given to the petitioner shall not be disrupted on account of the said dispute, provided the petitioner pays the second count of claim made in Ext. P3 bill within two weeks from today.
The Original Petition is disposed of, as above.