Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mrs. Kushla Sehgal Wd/O Raman K Sehgal ... vs The Union Of India And Others on 14 May, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CWP No. 3063 of 1992 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 3063 of 1992
Date of decision May 14, 2013
Mrs. Kushla Sehgal wd/o Raman K Sehgal and others
...... Petitioners
Vs.
The Union of India and others
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- None.
****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The writ petition had been earlier directed to be posted after the disposal of the writ petition in CWP No. 15418 of 1991. In the said case, this Court has directed that the telephone bill shall stand reduced to 25%. I am afraid I may not be able to follow this decision, for, in my view, a challenge to an arbitral award can be done only within the four corners of the Arbitration Act, 1940 itself. The award cannot be brought for a challenge through the writ petition unless it is the case of complete error in jurisdiction. In relation to a dispute regarding telephone bills if the consumer has an objection, Section 7 of the Telephone Act provides for a statutory arbitration. The exercise of jurisdiction by the authority has been under the Act and an award passed under the statutory arbitration cannot be a CWP No. 3063 of 1992 2 subject of judicial review through a writ petition.
2. In the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and another Vs. Diamond Gem Development Corporation Std.and another AIR 2013 SC 1241, in a writ petition challenging the allotment of land under Rajasthan State Industrial & Investment Corporation of (Disposal of Land Rules) 1979, the Supreme Court held that even apart from the procedure prescribed under the Rules, the lease deed providing for certain rights to an allottee contained arbitration clause and in such an event, a writ remedy does not lie. In Om Parkash Satish Kumar Thapar Vs. Union of India through Secretary AIR 1996 P&H, a Division Bench was actually considering a situation when the statutory arbitrator did not discharge him duly and the Court held, when intervention was sought through a writ that remedy by resort to Article 226 will not be completely barred, but it did no more than directing the appointment of an arbitrator within two months. A challenge to a telephone bill as excessive cannot be a subject of adjudication by a Court, except when a jurisdictional error was involved or when a correction is sought to be enforced to put back on rail the arbitral process.
3. The writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed as such.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 14, 2013 arhana