Trial Court has no jurisdiction when alternative remedy of arbitration is available.

Aggrieved by the common order passed by the learned District Munsif, Karur dated 29.04.1999 made in I.A.No.121 and 166 of 1999, the General Manager, Telecommunications, Trichy and others have preferred the above revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The respondent herein - former Member of Parliament has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.107 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif, Karur, praying for declaration, declaring the action of the defendants in disconnecting the suit telephone connections as illegal, arbitrary and also prayed for decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the suit telephone connections. The plaintiff has also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disconnecting the suit telephone connections without giving any show cause notice. Pending disposal of the said suit, the petitioner / plaintiff filed I.A.No.121 of 1999, praying for mandatory injunction restraining the respondents / defendants to restore the suit telephone connections till the disposal of the suit and also prayed for ad-interim mandatory injunction to the same effect. The said application was resisted by the Telephone Department by filing counter affidavit. Since the Court below has granted interim injunction, the respondents / defendants filed separate petition for vacating the said injunction order. Both the applications were heard together. As many as Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked on the side of the petitioner / plaintiff and Exs.B.1 to B.18 on the side of the respondents / defendants. By the impugned order dated 29.04.1999, the learned District Munsif disposed of the said applications by referring the matter in dispute for arbitration under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1957 (in short "the Act"). In the same order, the learned Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo and not interfere with the usage of the telephone connections by the petitioner. Questioning the said common order, the Telecommunication Department has filed the above revisions.

3. Heard the learned Additional Central Government standing counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Even at the foremost, Mr. Kumar, learned Additional Central Government standing counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in the light of the fact that the issue raised / questioned relates to dispute concerning telephone, as per Section 7-B of the Act, the proper course is to agitate the same by way of arbitration proceedings and the same cannot be entertained by the Civil Court. He also contended that no direction of any nature can be granted by the Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that till award being passed, as per Sub-section (2) of Section 7-B of the Act, he is free to move the competent civil Court to vindicate his grievance.

5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

6. There is no dispute that the respondent / plaintiff is a former Member of Parliament and the dispute relates to suit telephone Nos.60777 and 63777. The dispute arose due to disconnection of the above telephones on 16.02.1999 for non payment of charges. In this regard, it is useful to refer the relevant provision, namely 7-B (1) and (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1957.

" 7-B. Arbitration of disputes.-

(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus, is, or has been, provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purposes of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of the disputes under this Section.

(2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive b