AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioners challenge Ext. P 12, an award rendered by the Arbitrator appointed u/s 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act.
Petitioner applied for 2 ISDN PRA lines in the year 2001 and furnished necessary security. The monthly rent was Rs. 5000/- each. It is stated that Respondents reduced the monthly rent to Rs. 1750/-. It is stated that Petitioner was issued with bills at the rate applicable and the same was paid by the Petitioner without delay. Subsequently on the application made by the Petitioner, the connection was disconnected. Later, an additional bill including the amount due from the Petitioner at the rate of Rs. 5000/- was issued and that was challenged by the Petitioner by filing WPC No. 16664 of 2010. By Ext. P 9 judgment this Court directed that the matter will be resolved by appointing an Arbitrator u/s 7B of the Telegraph Act. Accordingly, an Arbitrator was appointed and in the proceedings Ext.P12 award has been passed. The direction issued in the Award reads as follows:
(1). The then current monthly rent i.e @ Rs. 5000/- calculated for the period from 1.11.2004 to 31.8.2005 for the ISDN PRA 2378851 is in order and is payable.
(2) The calculation of monthly rent from 01.09.2005 to 07.08.2006 is justified only at the revised rate ie. @ Rs. 1,750/- and the same is realizable.
(3) The date of closure of connection can be considered as 07.08.2006 and the period thereafter cannot be treated for any kind of imposition of rental.
(4) After recalculating the account as stated above the amount due should be refunded to the Petitioner within 30 days from the date of release of award (5) The Principal General Manager, BSNL, SSA Ernakulam has to close the complaint accordingly.
It is these findings, which are under challenge.
As far as the rate that is applicable is concerned, learned standing counsel has obtained instructions in the matter. The monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 1750 came into force with effect from 1.9.2005 following the publication of Ext. P 3 notification on 25.8.2005. If that be so, and in the absence of any material to contradict this submission, it cannot be said that there is anything erroneous in the Arbitrator ordering in the pre-revised rate for the period prior to 1.9.2005 and the revised rate for the period from 1.9.2005.
In that view of the matter, I see nothing to show that Petitioner has made out a case to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.