Kerala High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Sasi S. on 7 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: AIR 1999 KERALA 336, 1999 (3) ARBI LR 435, (1999) 3 ARBILR 435, (1999) 1 KER LJ 775, (1999) 3 RECCIVR 403, (1999) 4 CIVLJ 510, (1999) 2 KER LT 521
ORDER S. Sankarasubban, J.
1. This C.R.P. is filed againsl the order on issue No. 1 in O.S. 60/1997 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. The suit was filed for a mandatory injunction for direction to the defendants to appoint an Arbitrator to settle the dispute with regard to the telephone bills issued to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he was a subscriber to telephone No. 223184 of Neyyattinkara Telephone Exchange. Certain bills issued to the plaintiff were excessive. So, as per notice dated 27-9-1996, the plaintiff demanded the defendant, viz. the General Manager, Telecom, Trivandrum, to settle the dispute with regard to the telephone bills issued to him under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphs Act. Since the defendant did not respond to this, the suit was filed.
2. The defendant filed a written statement taking many contentions, one of the contention being that the suit is not maintainable. This was considered as the preliminary issue and the Court has held that the suit is maintainable. It is against that the present revision is filed.
3. Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act is as follows:--
(1) "Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, 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 arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government cither 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."
Thus, if there is a dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus 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 arbitration and shall be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. The award of the arbitrator is conclusive between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Section 7-B, the Government cannot be compelled to refer all disputes to arbitration. Further, it is contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent was not seeking to quash the bills. He was only seeking to enforce his right under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act.
5. No provision has been brought to My notice in the Telegraph Act excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court with regard to a particular matter can be said to be excluded if there is an express provision or by implication it can be inferred that the jurisdiction is taken away. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, (1999) 1 SCC 472 : (AIR 1999 SC 294) considered the question whether a Civil Court has got jurisdiction with regard to an order passed by the disciplinary authority. It held as follows: 'Service rules neither expressly nor by implication have taken away jurisdiction of Civil Courts to deal with service matters. It is a different matter to insist that departmental remedies should be exhausted before a person approaches the Civil Court; but it cannot be held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction.' As I have already stated, no provision in the Indian Telegraph Act was brought to my notice which ousts ihe jurisdiction of the Civil Court. According to Section 7-B, if a dispute arises, the matter has to be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. In fact under the Indian Telegraph Act it is the only remedy provided for a person who complains that the bill issued to him is excessive. If the department does not appoint an arbitrator, the subscriber will be without any remedy. Section 7-B only says that the decision taken by the arbitrator will be final and conclusive, and shall not be questioned in any Court. It may be possible to contend that when an award is passed, that award cannot be questioned in a Civil Court. But, in this case that stage has not reached. The department now contends that a Civil Court cannot legally enforce the right provided to a subscriber under Section 7-B of me Act. I cannot accept this contention. It cannot be said that in all such cases the subscriber should approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Civil Court has necessarily got the jurisdiction to enforce the right of a subscriber under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. I am fortified in this view by the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Prithvi Raj Kohli v. Union of India, AIR 1988 J and K 17. Hence, I am of the view that the Court below was right in holding that the suit was maintainable.
In the above view of the matter, the C.R.P. is dismissed.