Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Ramchand Naraindas on 13 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1995MP216, 1995(0)MPLJ560, AIR 1995 MADHYA PRADESH 216, (1995) JAB LJ 460, (1995) MPLJ 560, (1995) 3 CIVLJ 252
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
JUDGMENT U.L. Bhat, C.J.
1. Respondent herein, a telephone subscriber who received a bill for telephone charges, which according to him, was not correct or proper, filed a suit for a declaration to that effect and for consequential injunction restraining disconnection of the telephone facility. On the date fixed for appearance of the defendants, the telephone department, the defendant, filed an application contending that plaintiff has raised a dispute coming within the operation of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and, therefore, the dispute should be referred to arbitration. The Court held that provisions under Section 7B are not attracted and accordingly dismissed the application. The dismissal of the application is challenged in this appeal
2. The averments in the plaint have been read before me. The contention of the plaintiff is that the meter reading shown in the telephone bill served on him is not the reading of the meter of his telephone, that the bill has been prepared on the Basis of meter reading relating to some other telephone and that his meter has not been correctly read.
3. Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 reads thus :
"7-B. Arbitration of disputes.-- (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 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 arbitrator appointed under Sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court."
4. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that only dispute "concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus" arising between the telegraph authority and the subscriber falls within the scope of the statutory provision. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends on the basis of certain precedents that even a dispute of the nature raised in the present case falls within the ambit of the statutory provision.
5. I will first advert to decisions of other High Courts which have been placed before me. In Raghubar Dayal Kanodia v. Union of India, AIR 1970 Allahabad 143, there was no dispute regarding the apparatus or defective operation of the meter and the dispute related to the correctness of the actual reading. The learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court held that the dispute fell outside the scope of Section 7B, In Union of India v. Usha Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., AIR 1982 Delhi 111, the subscriber alleged that the steep rise in the number of calls was attributable to misuse of the telephone lines by the staff of the telephone department. A learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court refused to follow the Allahabad decision on the ground that the dispute related to the functioning of the telephone itself and not the meter reading or the calls recorded by the meter. According to the learned Judge, it matters little whether the malfunctioning of the telephone was accidental, arising out of some defect in the telephone line or apparatus or appliance or whether it was as a sequel to machinations on the part of the staff of the department. In both cases, the result would be the same, namely, recording of calls is not based on proper and correct functioning of the telephone line, apparatus or appliance. Since, at any rate, the telephone connection is sought to be out in exercise of power conferred by Rule 443 and it is resisted on the ground that the department itself is to be blamed for the faulty operation and functioning of the telephone, the dispute cannot be said to be one outside the purview of Section 7B.
6. Reference is made to a number of decisions of this Court. The earliest of the decisions is the one in Rasiklal v. Divisional Engineer, Telephones, (1964) Jab LJ 566. The telephone of the subscriber was sought to be disconnected on the ground that it was being used by third parties and the user amounted to unauthorised use. The subscriber filed a writ petition challenging the notice and in the alternatively seeking reference under Section 7B of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court held that the dispute whether the telephone could or could not be disconnected is a dispute falling under Section 7B of the Act.
7. In Dr. J. N. Seth v. Union of India, (1990) Jab LJ 756: (AIR 1991 Madh Pra 180), the subscriber alleged that the bills were wrong and demanded reference to arbitration, and then applied to the Court for reference. The subscriber challenged the bill on the ground of malfunctioning of the telephone or misuse of the telephone lines by linemen and other staff of the department. It was held that S. 7-B would be attracted.
8. In Indu Agrawal v. Director, Telecoms, (1990) MPLJ 813, a Division Bench of this Court made a distinction between disconnection under Rule 421 and Rule 443 and pointed out that the former arises on satisfaction and the Divisional Engineer may disconnect for recorded reasons while in the latter case the disconnection is ordered when charges are not being paid. The Court referred to the decision in M. P. No. 1064 of 1983 (K. B. Sinha v. Union of India) to the effect that a dispute whether the telephone could or could not be disconnected is a dispute falling under Section 7B of the Act.
9. My attention was also invited to two unreported decisions of this Court. In M. P. No. 157/90, the Court directed reference to arbitration. In M. P. No. 3580/84, the Court agreed that the matter should be referred to arbitration, but the order does not indicate the scope of the dispute.
10. I am bound to follow the decisions of this Court, particularly the decision of the Division Bench. The decisions make it clear that whether a disconnection can or cannot be effected itself would attract the operation of Section 7B of the Act. This is irrespective of the basic allegation of the subscriber in relation to the correctness of the bill, whether it was due to malfunctioning of the telephone or misreading or wrong reading of the meter. In the circumstances, the lower Court was in error in holding that the dispute does not fall within Section 7B of the Act. The impugned order is set aside. The application filed by the defendant is allowed. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but without costs.