M/S. SPECTRUM SOFTECH SOLUTIONS (P) LTD. KUNNUMPURATH BUILDING v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1655 of 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 9th day of July, 2007 JUDGMENTH.L.Dattu, C.J.The appellant in this writ appeal questions the correctness or otherwise of theorders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.18619 of 2007 dated 18thJune, 2007.2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 andis doing business as an I.T. and I.T. enabled service provider. It is depending on theinfrastructural facilities provided by the third respondent-BSNL for doing distancetransmission lines. Notices were issued to the petitioner by the third respondentclaiming certain amounts as arrears, since the tariff quoted in the earlier bills happenedto be for using 2 wire circuit, whereas the petitioner was using 4 wire circuit and theamount being differential rate between 4 wire circuits and 2 wire circuits. Thesedemands had been questioned by the petitioner before this Court earlier in W.A. No.1214 of 2005. This Court by its order dated 15.6.2005 had disposed of the appeal andin that had observed:-“When the matter came up for admission learned counsel for therespondent submitted that the dispute between the parties caneffectively be determined by the Tribunal under Section 14 of theTelecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. It is for the parties toraise their grievances before the Tribunal. The Tribunal wouldindependently decide the dispute between the parties untrammelled bythe observations of the learned Single Judge in the judgment.”3. The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has become final, inthe sense, none of the parties to the writ appeal has carried the matter before anysuperior forum either for modification or for annulment of the said order. W.A.No.1655/200724. The third respondent has now once again initiated proceedings againstthe petitioner for recovery of the arrears of the amount payable by the petitioner byresorting to revenue recovery proceedings. Those proceedings are the subjectmatter of the writ petition.5. The learned Single Judge merely following what was said by the DivisionBench of this Court in W.A.No.1214 of 2005, has disposed of the writ petitionrelegating the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. Aggrieved by that order thepetitioner is before us in this writ appeal.6. There is dispute between the parties regarding the amount payable bythe petitioner to the third respondent for the services provided by them. Thatdispute requires to be redressed by filing an appeal/petition as provided underSection 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. Bypassing thatremedy, petitioner cannot file any Writ Petition. Correctly understanding the purportof the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the Writ Petition. Therefore, we are of theopinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from anyerror whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it isrejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE vns/DK W.A.No.1655/20073