9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rbitrator. In the present case the Arbitrator has not been appointed by the Central Government as required under Section 7B of the Act. On perusal of the award indicates that no reason has been assigned, rather, the Arbitrator who is obliged under law to pass a reasoned award has resolved the dispute without assigning any reason. It is well settled law that in public law remedy when the order visits with civil consequences, natural justice required recording the reasons as they are bridge between the order and its maker to indicate how his mind was applied to the facts presented and the decision reached. It is seen that under Section 7B, the award is conclusive but when the citizen complains that he was not correctly put to bill for the calls he had made and disputed the demand for payment, the statutory remedy opened to him is one provided under Section 7B of the Act. By necessary implication, when the arbitrator decides the dispute under Section 7B, he is enjoined to give reasons in support of his decision since it is final and cannot be questioned in a court of law. However, the only remedy available to the aggrieved person against the award is judicial review under Articl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year. The excess calls made over and above the pooled 50,000 free calls per annum can also be adjusted against the 50,000 free calls for the next year. In terms of Rules 444 to 453 of P T Manual (Volume-XIV), the charges for the local calls to the extent of 50,000 calls in respect of the two telephones in a year are borne by the Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha Secretariat, as the case may be, and the charges for the calls in excess thereof, are billed against the concerned Member of Parliament and are deducted from his/her salary through the Secretariat. Accordingly, the petitioner by virtue of his status as a Member of Parliament, was provided with one telephone bearing No. 379-2116 at New Delhi and another telephone bearing No. 330353 at his Constituency at Bhawanipatna. The telephone at New Delhi operated from 25.6.91 till 23.5.96 and during his tenure as a Member of Parliament, he was never served with any bill nor any amount was ever deducted from his salary towards the charges for excess call and as such, the petitioner was all along under a bona fide impression that the calls made from the two telephones are well within the permissible limit of 50,000 calls per annum. However, after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no jurisdiction to pass the award, which is absolutely a misconceived one. He further stated that the award passed by the Arbitrator is just and reasonable one and does not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition being devoid of any merits. 4. On the basis of the facts pleaded above, the following questions emerges for consideration. (i) Whether the award so passed is in violation of Section 7B of the Act as he has not been appointed by the Central Government? (ii) Whether an unreasoned award passed by the Arbitrator can sustain in the eye of law? (iii) To what relief? 5. Section 7B of the Act reads as follows: 7B. Arbitration of disputes.--(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, 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 is, or has been provided, the dispute shall 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 general ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is further urged that the provision contained under Section 7B of the Act is very clear, thereby if the statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same has to be adhered to in the same manner or not at all. The origin of the Rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Tailor, (1875) LR I Ch D 426, which was subsequently followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 (2). But the said principle has been well recognized and holds the field till today in Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala, (1999) 3 SCC 422 and Zuari Cement Limited v. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad and others, (2015) 7 SCC 690 and the said principle has been referred to by this Court in Manguli Behera v. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No. 21999 of 2014 disposed of on 10.03.2016). 9. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the apex Court as well as this Court, appointment of the Arbitrator having not been done in consonance with the provisions contained under Section 7B of the Act, meaning thereby, it is the Central Government alone can appoint Arbitrator, the same having not been done in consonance with the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as a matter of policy and public interest -- if not as a compulsion of law -- ensure that wherever they enter into agreements for resolution of disputes by resort to private arbitrations, the requirement of speaking awards is expressly stipulated and ensured. It is for Governments and their instrumentalities to ensure in future this requirement as a matter of policy in the larger public interest. Any lapse in that behalf might lend itself to and perhaps justify, the legitimate criticism that Government failed to provide against possible prejudice to public interest. In regard to the arbitration of disputes concerning the claim against the Government, this Court has emphasised the need for recording reasons in the awards touching the public exchequer. In other words, when the public law element is involved, in a public law remedy, public interest demands that reasons should be given even in the award. 13. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the apex Court, reasons are required to be recorded when it affects the public interest. It is seen that under Section 7B, the award is conclusive but when the citizen complains that he was not correctly put to bill for the calls he h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
