Dr. Avito Henrique Jorge vs Telecom Divisional Manager and Another

Silva and Mutalik, JJ.—The petitioner had approached this Court with Writ Petition No. 75 of 1992 seeking some reliefs against the respondents, namely, to claim that his phone should not be disconnected by the Department on the ground of non-payment of an excessive bill presented by them. The said petition was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner should follow the procedure laid down under the Act and file an application to the respondents u/s 7B of the Act for referring his claim for arbitration. In the aforesaid order a direction was given to the Department to dispose of this application for arbitration as expeditiously as possible. The order was passed on 17.2.1992.

It appears that on the same day i.e. 17.2.1992, the learned Counsel for the petitioner filed an application to the Department praying that the dispute regarding excessive billing of phone No. 24041 referred to in Writ Petition No. 76 of 1992 be referred to arbitration. In the said application the contents of the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 75 of 1992 were also transcribed. However, the application was signed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner instead of being signed by the petitioner. Inspite of this application the Department has not taken any action to refer the petitioner''s case for arbitration and instead the respondents seem to have continued harassing the petitioner to effect the payment of the excessive bills presented to him under the threat of disconnection. This is the reason why the present Petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction from the court to restrain the respondents from in any way disconnecting the telephone No. 24041 for non-payment of the bill dated 1.8.1991 for Rs. 10,650/ - and the bill dated 1.10.1991 for Rs. 9,612/ -.

When the matter was taken up for hearing Mr. Sharma learned Counsel for the respondents, contended that no application has been made by the petitioner to refer the case for arbitration. It was submitted by Mr. Sharma that the application presented by the learned Counsel was not an application under the law and the petition himself was expected to approach the Department with an application u/s 7B of the Indian Telegraphs Act. Therefore, this Court in view of the submission of Shri Sharma directed the learned Counsel to cause the petitioner to personally file a fresh application to the Department seeking the reference of the dispute to arbitration.

Shri Aras, learned Counsel for the petitioner, today stated that an application dated 31st March, 1992 has already been filed by the petitioner in the Department. Shri Sharma agrees that an application dated 31.3.1992 was already received by the Department and that the Department will act accordingly. Shri Sharma contends that the petitioner should be directed to pay atleast one of the disputed bills, because otherwise, the Department will be seriously handicapped and financially affected for non-payment of bills which according to them are due and correct.

We are, however, of the view that this prayer of Shri Sharma is not justified. The previous order of this Court dated 17.2.1992 has directed the Department to refer the dispute to arbitration. Inspite of that the Department did not care to comply with the order of the court on the ground of mere technicalities by alleging that the application for reference has not been signed by the petitioner and has been presented by his counsel only. The said application, however, was containing all the details which would enable the Department to act on the said application. If the Department was really keen in getting payment of its dues nothing prevented the Department from making the reference to arbitration on the strength of the said application and which reference by this time would have been disposed of in view of the directions given by the Court that the said application should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

In the circumstances we direct the Department to take up the application; presented by the petitioner on 31.3.1992 and make the reference sought for as soon as possible, anyhow within 30 days from the date of this order, and, get it disposed accordingly. There is no need for the petitioner in the meantime to effect the payment of any bills which are to be paid after the final adjudication of the arbitration proceedings. In the meantime the respondents are directed not to disconnect the petitioner''s phone No. 24041 till the final adjudication of the arbitration proceeding. Nothing else survives in this petition which is disposed of accordingly.