TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER, GOA AND ORS. versus V.S. DEMPO & CO. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 524 · Decided: 18-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER, GOA AND ORS. 
v. 
V.S. DEMPO & CO. AND ORS. 
MARCH 18,1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 : 
Section 7B-lnte1pretation of 
C 
Teleplwne-Subscriber-Bil/ing dispute-Detennination of dispute by 
Arbitrator to be appointed by Central Government-Reference to Ar-
bitratm~Held authority under the Act is enjoined to make reference to 
Arbitrator without any direction of Cowt-Administrative instntctions issued 
by Union of India providing for dispute to be refe1Ted only when there was a 
D reference by Court-Held in defiance of the language used in Section 7-
B-Object of section 7-B explained. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 4-6. 
IN 
Civil Appeal Nos. 10005-07 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.95 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. Nos. 398, 134 and 192 of 1994. 
F 
R. Venugopal Reddy and Ms. Anil Katiyar for the Appellants. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Appeals are taken on board. 
These appeals by special arise from the judgment of the Bombay 
G High Court, Pana.ii Bench made on March 31, 1995 in C.W.P. No 398/94 
and batch. The fact relate to the dispute raised by the respondents for two 
bills, one for a sum of Rs. 99,196 and the other for Rs. 71,280. The 
appellant-Union of India has taken the stand that under the Administrative 
Instructions issued by it, the dispute cannot be referred unless the sub-
H scriber approaches the Court and the Court gives the direction for appoint-
524 
i ) 
·>( 
TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER v. V.S. DEMPO & CO. 
525 
men! of an arbitrator under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphs Act. A 
Section 7B reads as under : 
"7-B Arbitration of Disputes : (1) Except as otherwise expressly 
provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph and 
telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, 
appliance or apparatus, is, or has been, provided, the dispute shall B 
be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purposes of such 
determination, 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. 
c 
(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." 
A reading thereof would indicate that 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 
D 
is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by an arbitrator. 
Such determination shall be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the 
Central Government either specifically for the determination of the dispute E 
or generally for the determination of dispute under this section. The award 
of the arbitrator shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and 
its correctness is prohibited to be questioned in a court of law. It would, 
otherwise, be clear that any dispute regarding the billing of the meter and 
the liability on a subscriber thereon when its correctness is disputed, should p 
be referred to the arbitrator by the Central Government. The arbitrator's 
award shall be final. In a recent judgment, considering the provisions of 
the Act, this Court has explained that when the arbitrator's award is final, 
it would be subject to only judicial review. The judicial review by the High 
Court or this Court would be possible only when the arbitrator gives 
reasons in support of the conclusions he reaches, be it technical or on G 
factual basis. The Administrative Instructions issued by the Union of India 
that the dispute shall be referred only when there is a reference by the 
Court is obviously in defiance of the language used in Section 7B. The 
power to refer the dispute has been given by the Parliament only with a 
view to see that the authority acts within reasonable limits and that when H 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996) 3 S.C.R. 
A subscriber disputes the correctness of the meter reading or operation of 
the apparatus etc. instead of litigating the dispute in a civil Court, it should 
be decided by arbitrator under Section 7B. Obviously, pending proceedings 
the Act intended to operate without undue delay to secure public revenue 
and also flow of electrical operation envisaged under the Act. Under those 
B circumstances, we
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.