Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri K.N.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. The writ petition is directed against order dated 30th August, 2011 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Aligarh holding petitioner liable for payment of damages to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- besides expenses to respondent No. 1.

3. The facts in brief given rise to the present dispute are as under:

4. The respondent No. 1 booked a telegram on 17th June, 2011 at Lucknow to transmit a massage to Senior Treasury Officer, Aligarh for extension of his earned leave from 18th June, 2011 to 28th June, 2011. The said telegram was not delivered till 14th July, 2011 as a result whereof respondent No. 1 suffered deduction of salary for the period of absence and therefore he claimed damages/compensation.

5. The defence taken by petitioner is that telegram which was received at Aligarh, was illegible and therefore was returned to Lucknow. The Central Telegraph office was also informed of the situation. Thereafter on 9th July, 2011 the matter was examined and technical fault in the system was rectified whereafter telegram was obtained in legible condition and handed over to one Sri Jabar Singh (T.M.) for distribution. However, he could not distribute the same being second Saturday and Sunday and thereafter from 11th to 13th July, 2011 he was absent due to illness. He could distribute the telegram on and after 14th July, 2011 after rejoining service.

6. It is contended that Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1885”) is a special Act and if there is any deficiency on account of system failure, no compensation is payable unless it is shown that there is negligence of departmental officials. He also contended further that in view of Section 7B of Act 1885, dispute could have been referred to Arbitration, and, Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction in the matter. Reliance is placed on Apex Court’s decision in Civil Appeal No. 7687/04 decided on 1st September, 2009 (General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan and another) wherein Apex Court held that in view of remedy provided under Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act, the remedy under Consumer Protection Act by implication is barred. Indian Telegraph Act is special Act and Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is general Act as such special law overrides general law. Relying thereon it is contended that Permanent Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to adjudicate regarding compensation. In this regard reliance is also placed on Apex Court’s decision in Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, 1995(2) SCC 479. It is thus contended that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction.

7. However, I find no force in the submission.

8. So far as applicability of Section 7B of Act 1885 is concerned, I do not find that the same has any application in a case like the present one.

9. Section 7B of Act 1885 reads as under:

“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 disputes under this section.

(2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court.”

10. Here is not a case raising a dispute relating to telephone bills. Whenever an adjudicatory forum is provided in a statute, which is a Special Act, scope of adjudicatory power under such special Act will confine to the provision concerned and shall not be stretched to the cases which are not apparently cove