1. Respondent herein, a telephone subscriber who received a bill for telephone charges, which according to him, was not correct or proper, filed a suit for a declaration to that effect and for consequential injunction restraining disconnection of the telephone facility. On the date fixed for appearance of the defendants, the telephone department, the defendant, filed an application contending that plaintiff has raised a dispute coming within the operation of section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and, therefore, the dispute should be referred to arbitration. The Court held that provisions under Sec. 7-B are not attracted arid accordingly dismissed the application. The dismissal of the application is challenged in this appeal.

2. The averments in the plaint have been read before me. The contention of the plaintiff is that the meter reading shown in the telephone bill served on him is not the reading of the meter of his telephone, that the bill has been prepared on the basis of meter reading relating to some other telephone and that his meter has not been correctly read.

3. Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 reads thus:

"7B.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 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."

4. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that only dispute "concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus" arising between the telegraph authority and the subscriber falls within the scope of the statutory provision. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends on the basis of certain precedents that even a dispute of the nature raised in the present case falls within the ambit of the statutory provision.

5. I will first advert to decisions of other High Court which have been placed before me. In Raghubar Dayal Kanodia v. Union of India and others (AIR 1970 Allahabad 143), there was no dispute regarding the apparatus or defective operation of the meter and the dispute related to the correctness of the actual reading. The learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court held that the dispute fell outside the scope of section 7-B. In Union of India and another v. M/s Usha Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (AIR 1982 Delhi 111) the subscriber alleged that the steep rise in the number of calls was attributable to misuse of the telephone lines by the staff of the telephone department. A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court refused to follow the Allahabad decision on the ground that the dispute related to the functioning of the telephone itself and not the meter reading or the calls recorded by the meter. According to the learned Judge, it matters little whether the malfunctioning of the telephone was accidental, arising out of some defect in the telephone line or apparatus or appliance or whether it was a sequel to machinations on the part of the staff of the department. In both cases, the result would be the same, namely, recording of calls is not based on proper and correct functioning of the telephone line, apparatus or appliance. Since, at any rate, the telephone connection is sought to be cut in exercise of power conferred by rule 443 and it is resisted on the ground that the department itself is to be blamed for the faulty operation and functioning of the telephone, the dispute cannot be said to be one outside the purview of Sec. 7-B.

6. Reference is made to a number of decisions of this Court. The earliest of the deci