The main legal point established was the requirement for proper consideration and investigation in arbitration proceedings, and the court's authority to set aside awards with errors apparent on the face of the record.

V. C. DAGA, J. - This writ petition is directed against an award passed by Shri Vinod Kumar, Deputy General Manager (M.K.I.G. & P.R.), an Arbitrator having been appointed by the Chairman and Managing Director, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Bombay, (M.T.N.L. for short) vide order dated 18-1-1993 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885) for determination of dispute resulting from the disconnection of the telephone on the ground that the petitioner had failed to pay a sum of Rs. 44,740.00/- pursuant to the demand note sent by the respondent No. 1.

2. The controversy involved in this writ petition centres around the problem of excess billing and failure on the part of the respondent No. 1 (M.T.N.L.) to provide relief to the subscriber after making proper investigation.

3. As narrated by the petitioner, he is a sole proprietor of M/s. Bharat International having his office at 6/8 V.S. Road, Bombay 16. Respondent No. 1 is a Government of India owned and controlled undertaking and was formed to take over inter alia the conducting of telephone services in Bombay from Bombay Telephones which was functioning as a department of Government of India and now vested with the monopoly of providing Telephone services. The petitioner had obtained the telephone connection in their above commercial premises and is a subscriber of telephone which bears No. 453882.

4. The petitioner initially in the month of August 1990 received a Bill dated 1-8-1990 without any mentioning of the metered calls, free calls, debit or credit or other chargeable calls etc., and as such the bill was only for rental charges of Rs. 330/-. The said bill was again followed by a similar bill dated 2-10-1990 showing the rental charges only for Rs. 330/- without any mention of the matered calls etc. Consequently petitioner approached the Telephone Department and requested for correct and proper bill with all details and particulars thereof. The Telephone Department failed and neglected to send proper and correct bill. Therefore, the petitioner by his letter dated 17-11-1990 called upon the Department to issue "No dues" certificate in respect of his telephone in dispute. The respondent department however, on receipt of the said letter dated 17-11-1990 sent a reply dated 13-11-1990 enclosing therewith a supplementary bill dated 7-11-1990 for Rs. 44,740/- for the alleged 41,137 calls chargeable for the period from 10-5-1990 to 10-9-1990. The petitioner on receipt of the bill immediately lodged a protest and complaint by letter dated 26-11-1990 and strongly disputed this bill and contended in his representation-cum-complaint that the bill does not disclose the correct number of calls made by the petitioner and the same are excessive and inflated. The petitioner further pointed out that at his instance S.T.D. facility of this telephone has been removed with the result that the petitioner was unable to make S.T.D. calls from this telephone. The petitioner had also pointed out to the respondent No. 1 that average bill for the year preceding the period of disputed bill had been about Rs. 500.00 and that considering the impugned bill it is shockingly excessive. The petitioner therefore, requested the department to make investigation into the excessive billing.

5. The petitioner further brought on record that the subsequent bill for the period 10-9-1990 to 10-11-1999 received by him did not show any arrears of previous dues although the supplementary bill dated 2-11-1999 remained unpaid. It seems respondent No. 1 neither undertook any investigation in pursuance of the complaint dated 26-11-1990 nor bothered to reply the same. The petitioner in view of the threats of disconnection by the respondent No. 1 filed a suit being Arbitration Suit No. 3628 of 1991 in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay, wherein the City Civil Court directed that the dispute be decided in pursuance of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphic Act by