1. The petitioner is a subscriber of a telephone bearing No.576240. He received demands under bills dated 11-11-1987, 11-01-1988, and 11-03-1988 for Rs.15,919/-, Rs.17,448/- and Rs.21,097/-, respectively. According to the petitioner, the demands were inflated to an extent of Rs.26,383/-. As the respondents persisted to recover the amounts demanded, the petitioner instituted a suit O.S.No.78 of 1998 in the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and initially sought for a declaration that the inflated amount as illegal and also sought for a consequential permanent injunction to restrain the defendants therein from disconnecting the telephone. The petitioner amended the plaint in I.A.No.670 of 1998 and thereby sought for a direction to refer the matter to an arbitrator for arbitration under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 (for brevity 'the Act'). The Civil Court while declining to grant relief of declaration as to the legality of the demands, however, granted relief of permanent injunction. The suit was partly decreed by judgment dated 21-10-1998 by directing the 4th defendant to appoint an arbitrator and the defendants 1 to 3 to refer the dispute to the arbitrator so appointed. The court directed that the arbitrator should be appointed within one month from the date of the decree. The 2nd respondent, thereupon, issued orders No.13-2/24 to 36 (Arb)/2000-TR (25), dated 09-05-2000, and appointed the 1st respondent as arbitrator. Although as per the Civil Court decree dated 21-10-1998, arbitrator was required to be appointed within one month, appointment was made after a long lapse of time by orders dated 09-05-2000 which is apparently beyond the time stipulated in the decree. Therefore, the petitioner took an objection and called upon the respondents to recall the appointment of the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent proceeded with arbitral proceedings and passed an award dated 26-11-2001 and held the petitioner liable. The present writ petition is filed challenging the orders of the 2nd respondent, appointing the 1st respondent as arbitrator and the Arbitration Award passed by the 1st respondent as well.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appointment of the 1st respondent as arbitrator by orders dated 09-05-2000, is invalid as opposed to the decree which required the appointment to be made within a month from the date of decree. The decree, since not appealed against and the same having become final, is binding on the respondents and the 2nd respondent, since failed to appoint the arbitrator within the stipulated time, waived his right to appoint the arbitrator. It is further submitted that the petitioner could not participate in the arbitration proceedings as he raised jurisdictional objection and awaited ruling on this issue, but the 1st respondent without ruling on the objection, passed the award. It is, therefore, in the alternative contended that the award is violative of the principles of natural justice.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the arbitrator could not be appointed within the time stipulated in the decree for valid reasons. According to the learned counsel, certified copy of the judgment and decree was applied for by the counsel on 16-12-1999 and it was delivered on 24-12-1999. The office of the respondents received it on 12-01-2001, whereupon, there was inter departmental consultation which resulted in the delay. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent, dehors the decree, is competent under Section 7-B of the Act, to appoint an arbitrator. It is therefore, contended that the appointment of arbitrator and the arbitration award as well are legal and valid.

5. The Act is an enactment dealing with law relating to "Telegraphs" in India. Under Section 4 of the Act, the Central Government is conferred with exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs. Unde