Kerala High Court
A.Abdulla vs The Accounts Officer (Tr(Iii)) Tra Unit on 15 November, 2010
Author: C.K.Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34238 of 2010(D)
1. A.ABDULLA, S/O.KUNHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (TR(III)) TRA UNIT,
... Respondent
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR),
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :15/11/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
---------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.34238 of 2010-D
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a subscriber under respondents 1 and 2, provided with an ISDN PRI line, under the scheme of Integrated Services Digital Network. According to the petitioner the connection given to him was included under a special tariff namely 'Super Mega Plan Tariff'. Benefit under the said tariff is to the effect that, if the petitioner consumes service to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/-, then he will be eligible for free calls worth Rs.1,00,000/-. According to the petitioner, in various telephone bills issued, the benefit under the tariff plan was not given and he had raised disputes at various times. It is stated that on several occasions the bills were corrected and discount was provided to the petitioner. However, at the behest of respondents 1 and 2, recovery steps has now been initiated by the third respondent, on issuing Ext.P1 notice demanding a balance amount of `6,97,101/-. The petitioner disputes W.P(C) No.34238 of 2010-D 2 correctness of demand on the basis that the amounts are calculated not in a proper manner in accordance with the terms of the scheme (tariff plan). According to the petitioner a further notice was issued by the third respondent as per Ext.P2 claiming a different amount of `6,76,424/-.
2. Contention of the petitioner is that the recovery steps now being pursued, is without resorting to the procedure contemplated under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. Inspite of dispute raised, respondents 1 and 2 had failed to refer the dispute for arbitration, is the contention. A detailed representation was submitted by the petitioner as per Ext.P4 requesting respondents 1 and 2 to refer the dispute for arbitration. But since coercive steps of recovery is now being pursued without acceding to such request, this writ petition is filed.
3. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, on the basis of instructions, submitted that, before initiating revenue recovery steps the petitioner W.P(C) No.34238 of 2010-D 3 had neither raised any dispute nor made any request for arbitration. On the other hand it is submitted that after receipt of Ext.P2 the petitioner had approached the State Government for obtaining instalment facility. It is further stated that after payment of first instalment, the petitioner again defaulted and Ext.P2 revised demand is issued on the basis of the payment effected.
4. It is evident that the petitioner had not accepted correctness of the demand raised. According to the petitioner at every stage of billing he was raising objections and all the bills were not conceded. However, it is evident that the petitioner has not divulged true facts, which occurred after service of the demand notice under Ext.P1.
5. Going by provisions contained in Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, I am of the view that the matter need adjudication through an arbitrator appointed by respondents 1 and 2, in view of the fact that the petitioner was disputing correctness of the bills and he made specific request under Ext.P4. However, considering the liability, W.P(C) No.34238 of 2010-D 4 which is under dispute, I am inclined to grant such a relief subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 50% of the balance amount.
6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner with respect to arrears of telephone charges, to an Arbitrator to be nominated by the second respondent under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The Arbitrator so appointed will resolve the dispute after affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to submit objections and also for personal hearing.
7. The respondents are restrained from proceeding with further coercive steps of recovery pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 notices till the Arbitrator takes a final decision in the matter, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 50% of the amount in demand.
8. Needless to say that the amounts if any already paid by the petitioner against the demand under Exts.P1 and P2 shall be given credit while calculating the 50%. W.P(C) No.34238 of 2010-D 5 Recovery of the balance amount will be subject to the result of the arbitration. Payment of the 50% of the amount as insisted above shall be made within a period of six weeks from today.
9. It is clarified that if there is any failure to make deposit of the amount as insisted, the respondents will be free to proceed with further recovery steps.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab