S & S Industries and EnterprisesLimited v. Chief General ManagerChennai Telephones78

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 14-11-2007CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.4200 of 1999S & S Industries and EnterprisesLimited, rep. by its General Manager(Legal and Admn.) Mr.T.V.Babu189, Aarthi Chambers, Anna Salai,Chennai-600 002... Petitioner.Versus1.Chief General ManagerChennai Telephones78, Purasawalkam High Road,Chennai-600 010.2.Deputy General Manager (LD),Chennai Telephones29, Ritherdon Road, Vepery,Chennai-600 007.3.Senior Accounts Officer(Telephone Revenue (LD)Office of the Deputy GeneralManager (LD), Chennai Telephones29, Ritherdon Road, Vepery,Chennai-600 007... Respondents.Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the recordsin impugned Notice No.AOTR/LD/RX.IV/RA10/SP 457/Vol.II/6, dated 8/9-3-1999at Madras-7, on the file of the third respondent herein and quash thesame. For petitioner : Mr.R.Amizdhu For respondents : Mr.S.Udayakumar (ACGSC) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RHeard, Mr.R.Amizhdhu, the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr.S.Udayakumar, the learned Additional Central GovernmentStanding counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is engaged, interalia, in thebusiness of manufacture and sale of refined oils and mineral water at itsfactory located at Arcot, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner company had availedthe hotline facility circuit No.457 at its Anna Salai office. Thepetitioner company had been paying the telephone bills regularly andpromptly. In the month of February, 1996, the petitioner company's officeat Anna Salai was shifted to Vadapalani. On 20.2.1996, a letter had beensent to the respondents requesting them to extend the facility to the newpremises. Though the hotline facility was availed by the petitioner for aperiod of seven months only, from 1.7.95 to 20.2.96, they had paid a sumof Rs.1,08,598/- as rent for the period from 1.7.95 to 30.6.96. Therefore,the petitioner company had requested the respondents to give a rebate forthe period for which the hotline facility was not available to them. 3. It has been further stated that even though the facility was notavailable to the petitioner company, for the period from 1.3.96 to30.6.97, they had paid the rent in advance for the periods from 1.7.95 to30.6.96 and 1.7.96 to 30.6.97. The petitioner company had requested thefirst respondent by a letter, dated 30.8.96, to refund/re-adjust therental charges paid for the period for which the speech circuit was notavailable to the petitioner. Again by a letter, dated 14.10.96, thepetitioner had requested the first respondent to refund the amount due tothem. A representation was also made to the 3rd respondent, on 18.7.97,requesting for the adjustment of the amount which had already been paid asrent for the period from 1.7.96 to 30.6.97. Further, the petitioner hadinformed the second respondent on 28.12.98 that the speech circuit No.457was not required by them any more. The said facility was surrendered witheffect from 31.12.98 and it had been accepted by the respondents. However,a communication had been sent by the third respondent, dated 8.3.99,calling upon the petitioner to pay the rental arrears for the period from1.7.1997 to 30.6.98 and another bill for a sum of Rs.26,650/- had beenraised on 9.12.98. The total amount said to be due from the petitioner wasRs.2,44,846/-. 4. It was also stated in the communication issued by the thirdrespondent that the amount demanded had to be paid on or before 12.3.99,failing which the telephone connection of Telephone Nos.6242740 and 6258112 working at Ambattur and three residential numbers of the SeniorExecutive of the petitioner company would be disconnected. In suchcircumstances, the present writ petition had been filed before this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalfof the petitioner company that the respondents have no authority orpower to issue the impugned communication, dated 8/9-3-99, especially whenthe request of the petitioner to refund/re-adjust the amount is pendingbefore the respondents.6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents hadsubmitted that the delay in shifting the facility to the new premises ofthe petitioner company was only due to the callous attitude of thepetitioner as they had failed to provide the necessary modems even afterseveral reminders from the respondents, including the one issued on21.2.97. According to the letter, dated 6.8.96, issued by the petitionercompany, it is clear that the circuit was operational at the old addresseven during the month of August, 1996. Further, the petitioner companyhaving realised that their claim was unreasonable they had promised tosettle the outstanding dues payable by them. However, without settling theamount due, they had come before this court making unreasonable claims. 7. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel appearing forthe respondents that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia cannot entertain the disputed questions of fact and cannot act as afact finding authority, in view of the decision rendered in B.RamachandraReddy Vs. The Union of India and others (AIR 1993 Andhra Pradesh 19).Further, in accordance with Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885,the matter in dispute has to be resolved only by way of arbitration.Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, before this court, is liable to be dismissed asill-founded.8. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerhad expressed the apprehension that the respondents may take coercivesteps to recover the amounts alleged to be due from the petitioner beforethe dispute is resolved by way of arbitration. However, the learnedCounsel appearing for the respondents had allayed the apprehension of thepetitioner by submitting that such coercive steps would not be taken tillthe arbitration proceedings are concluded.9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearingfor the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that theonly remedy available to the petitioner is to invoke Section 7-B of theIndian Telegraph Act, 1885, to settle the dispute by way of arbitration. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. In such circumstances, the writ petition stands dismissed,leaving it open to the parties concerned to take appropriate steps asprovided under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, to settlethe matter by way of arbitration proceedings. Consequently, connectedWMP.No.6028 of 1999 is closed. cshSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.Chief General ManagerChennai Telephones78, Purasawalkam High Road,Chennai-600 010.2.Deputy General Manager (LD),Chennai Telephones29, Ritherdon Road, Vepery,Chennai-600 007.3.Senior Accounts Officer(Telephone Revenue (LD)Office of the Deputy GeneralManager (LD), Chennai Telephones29, Ritherdon Road, Vepery,Chennai-600 007.+1 cc to Mr.R.Amizshu, Advocate Sr.No.67894.+1 cc to Mr.S.Udayakumar, Advocate Sr.No.67537.VG(CO)dcp/19.11Writ Petition No.4200 of 1999