Kerala High Court
M/S.Spectrum Softtech Solutions Pvt vs The General Manager on 8 July, 2011
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16430 of 2011(C)
1. M/S.SPECTRUM SOFTTECH SOLUTIONS PVT.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER (TR OSP),
For Petitioner :SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :08/07/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
..........................................
W.P.(C). 16430/2011
..........................................
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011
JUDGMENT
Petitioner had two numbers of ISDN PRA lines which were given on making a security deposit of Rs.60,000/- each. The lines were surrendered and in so far as the claim for refund of one of the deposits is concerned, pursuant to the directions in Ext.P7 judgment, the matter was referred for arbitration. Award was rendered and the dispute stands settled. In so far as the second deposit made by the petitioner is concerned, by Ext.P8 representation petitioner sought refund of the amount in the light of the award pertaining to the other deposit made by it. That request was declined by Ext.P9 and hence the writ petition is filed with the following prayers.
(i). To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records and accounts leading to the ISDN PRA line No.2378850 and direct the respondents to refund the security deposit amount of Rs.60,000/- furnished by the petitioner at the time when ISDN PRA line was applied.
W.P.(C).16430/11 2
(ii). To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 7B of the India Telegraph Act, so as to resolve the dispute in question.
2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits, on instructions, that an amount of Rs.75,478/- due under the bill dated 5.12.2007 was remaining unpaid by the petitioner and therefore, the deposit has been appropriated towards that liability. Therefore, according to the respondents, there is no amount available to be refunded to the petitioner. In the light of the submission so made, the prayer for directing refund of the amount is only to be rejected and I do so.
3. In so far as the prayer for directing the respondents to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the disputed claim for refund is concerned, none of the communications made by the petitioner disclose that they sought any such appointment. Therefore, that prayer is premature.
In the above view of the matter, leaving it open to the W.P.(C).16430/11 3 petitioner to seek appointment of an Arbitrator, if they so desire, this writ petition is disposed of.
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs