( 1 ) THE challenge in the writ petition, which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge and against the dismissal of which the present letters Patent Appeal has been filed, is to the correctness of the demand raised by the Department of Telecommunications.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the appellant was given a public booth, commonly known as S. T. D. /p. C. O. Centre. When the bill for the period from 1- 4-1994 to 11-4-1994 was received, the appellant raised a complaint and according to the appellant, the demand which was made was very high. It was alleged that the representation of the appellant and other S. T. D. /p. C. O. Centre holders was wrongly rejected by the authorities concerned.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved a writ petition, being Special Civil Application No. 5399 of 1994 was filed in this Court, wherein the learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 17th August 1994, permitted the appellant to make representation and to produce the documentary evidence in support of his contentions. According to the appellant, the daily collection sheets of the appellant showed the amount different from what was sought to be claimed by the department from the appellant. It is pertinent to note that the daily collection sheets are maintained by the appellant whereas, according to the respondents, the billing is done on the basis of the meter reading in the automatic electronic exchange, which has recently started operation from March 1994. The learned single Judge by the said order dated 17th August 1994 permitted the respondents to recover 25% of the amount claimed, but the current bills were to be paid by the appellant.

( 4 ) AFTER granting the opportunity of hearing to the appellant, fresh decision was taken by the respondents on 31st December 1994, rejecting the representation of the appellant. This gave rise to the filing of the second writ petition, being Special civil Application No. 88 of 1995. In answer to the writ petition, Affidavit-in-reply was filed by the respondents wherein it was stated that the automatic electronic exchange installed at Keshod town was not defective and the bill issued to the appellant-petitioner was not excessive. It was further alleged that there was an increase in the business of the appellant and that the complaint of the appellant was thoroughly investigated and it was found that there was no excessive billing at all. It was further contended that the question whether the automatic electronic exchange is defective or not could not be effectively adjudicated by the Court while entertaining petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) THE learned single Judge (Coram : J. M. Panchal, J.) by the impugned judgment dated June 30, 1995 dismissed the said writ petition. The learned single judge took note of the facts stated in the Affidavit-in-reply to the effect that charging machines maintained by the appellant could be locally programmed and pulse rate could be changed by the licensee behind the back of the department and, therefore, the charging machines could not be treated as basis for billing purpose. The learned single Judge further held that the disputed questions of fact, like the questions which were involved in the present case, could not be gone into in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the High Court does not sit in appeal over the decision rendered by the Competent Authorities. The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed.

( 6 ) IN the present appeal the aforesaid submissions have been reiterated. The learned Counsel for the appellant also relied upon the decision of the Allahabad high Court in the case of Raghubar Dayal Kanodia v. Union of India and Ors. , air 1970 Allahabad 143, in support of his contention that the provisions of Sec. 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are not applicable to the present case.

( 7 ) IN our opinion, the Judgment of the learned singl