R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the subscriber of telephone No. 3300170, which is provided as a std/isd pco. She was served with two bills dated 15-8-1992 and 1-9-1992 (annexures-b and c) for Rs. 13,455/- and Rs. 14,236/- respectively for the periods 25-7-1992 to 10-8-1992 and 10-8-1992 to 25-8-1992. According to her, the billing of calls made from her telephone (std/pco) was computerised and the computer print-out showed that the amount due for the calls made during those periods were only Rs. 6,421/- and Rs. 7,139/ -. She, therefore, contended that the bills were excessive and filed writ petition No. 28127 of 1992 challenging the said bills. This court directed reference of the dispute to arbitration under Section 7-b of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and accordingly the dispute relating to the said bills was referred to arbitration to the third respondent. The arbitrator, after hearing the parties, has passed a reasoned award dated 27-4-1994, (Annexure-A) holding that the two bills issued by the department are correct and petitioner is liable to pay the said amount. The department has thereafter claimed the balance amount due in regard to the said bills, by its letter dated 10-5-1994, (Annexure-F ). Being, aggrieved, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing annexures-a and f.

( 2 ) THE petitioner contends that she has installed a computerised billing equipment which measures the number of calls made from the said telephone and bills the calls; and the said equipment has been approved by the department; and as per the print-outs from the said billing equipment, the petitioner's liability is only Rs. 6,421/- and rs. 7,139/- for the said periods; and as the bills issued by the department were in excess of the said amounts, the department's bills are erroneous; and this aspect has not been properly considered or appreciated by the arbitrator while making the award, even though the printouts were produced before the arbitrator.

( 3 ) THE decision of the arbitrator is final. Even a wrong finding or conclusion on facts, by the arbitrator is binding on the parties. This court in its writ jurisdiction, while exercising the power of judicial review, does not sit in appeal over the decision of the arbitrator. Unless there is violation of principles of natural Justice in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings, or there is any mala fide or bias on the part of the arbitrator or the findings reached are found to be arbitrary or unreasonable, or irrational, on the face of the award, this court will not interfere with the award. The Supreme Court in m. l. jaggi v mahanagar telephones nigam limited and others, has held that under Section 7-b, the award of the arbitrator is conclusive in regard to a dispute or complaint of the subscriber that the bill is excessive; and a high court, while exercising the power of judicial review in considering the correctness or legality of an award, does not act as a court of appeal, but acts within the narrow limits of judicial review. In the light of the said principles, let me examine the award in this case.

( 4 ) IT is not the case of the petitioner that there is any violation of principles of natural justice. Nor is it her case that there is any bias or mala fide on the part of the arbitrator. The only question that remains for consideration is whether the award contains any finding or reasoning which is arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable so as to call for interference in a petition under article 226 of the constitution.

( 5 ) THE arbitrator has considered and rejected the petitioner' scontention that if the department's bills are in excess of the billing made and recorded, by the computerised measuring equipment installed by the subscriber, the subscriber is liable to pay only the amount shown by the print-outs from his computerised call measuring equipment and not the amount claimed in the department bills. He has found that the computerised measuring equipment installed by the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document