Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.

1. Does Sec. 7 - B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum as constituted under the consumer Protection Act, 1986? Is the rule as enunciated General Manager v. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, 2000 (2) Ker. LT 195 in conformity with the provisions of the 1986 Act? These are the two questions that arise for consideration in this appeal. A few facts as relevant for the decision of the case may be briefly noticed.

2. The respondent is a resident of Kozhikode. He is a partner of M/s.Auspins. The firm has a telephone connection No. 740008 with the Nellikode Exchange. This telephone is installed at T.K.House, Kottooli, Calicut-16. On March 20, 2001 the respondent was served with a copy of the notice issued to Sri.T.K. Reghunath. By this notice Sri. Reghunath was called upon to clear the dues of Rs. 17,103 with respect to telephone numbers 722060 by August 29, 2001. The respondent was threatened that in case the bill for telephone No. 722060 was not cleared b the due date his telephone No. 740008 shall be disconnected. This was despite the fact that admittedly no amount was due from the respondent and there was no other default on his part.

3. On receipt of the above-mentioned notice, the respondent sent a reply vide letter dated August 17, 2001. It was pointed out that he was not responsible for the amount due from T.K.Reghunath. It was further mentioned that he was a tenant in the premises. His telephone could not be disconnected on account of the failure of Mr. Reghunath to pay the bill. The reply, it seems, was not even considered. The telephone of the respondent was disconnected on September 13, 2001.

4. The respondent felt aggrieved by the action of the authority in disconnecting his telephone. Consequently, he filed a complaint under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He prayed that the authority may be directed to immediately restore the telephone connection. He also claimed a sum of Rs. 5000 as damages.

5. The complaint was considered by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode. Vide order dated November 26, 2001 the complaint was accepted. The authorities were directed to restore the connection of telephone No. 740008 "forthwith". A compensation of Rs.5000 was also allowed with Interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint.

6. The appellant viz. the General Manager Telecom, BSNL, Kozhikode and the Junior Engineer, BSNL, Nellikode Exchange felt aggrieved by the order of the Forum. They filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was stated that the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of General Manager v. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, 2000 (2) Ker LT 195.

7. A learned single Judge of this Court considered the matter. It was observed that the parties had appeared and adduced evidence. The forum had given a "decision on merits". Thus, the grievance, if any can be made by filing "a statutory appeal before the State Forum". With these observations the writ petition was dismissed.

8. The appellants filed an appeal. The matter was posted before a Division Bench. Reliance was again placed on the earlier decision. On consideration of the matter, the Bench expressed its reservation about the correctness of the view taken by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case. The Bench felt that a larger Bench should consider the matter. Thus, the case has been placed before this Bench.

9. Mr. Pathrose Mathai, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is a special law. Sec. 7-B provides that all disputes shall be referred to an arbitrator for decision. In view of this special law, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint made by the respondent. Learned counsel referred to certain decisions in support of his contention. The claim made o