JUDGMENT T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. Heard Sri. P. V. Madhavan Nambiar, Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government, who appears for the respondents on receipt of notice. He opposes the prayer made by the petitioner in the original petition on the ground that enquiry has revealed that the bills issued to the petitioner are for the correct amount. 2. The petitioner's definite case is that he was being charged with much less amounts during the prior periods as evident from the statement furnished in Para.2 of the original petition. He was using the telephone only sparingly and there was therefore no occasion for the petitioner to be served with any bill for a larger amount. However, the petitioner was served with a bill dated 21-9-1988 for an amount of Rs. 6348/- for the two month period towards which the petitioner paid a portion, Rs. 2090/- as directed by the respondents. He made complaint Ext. P1 about the bill alleging that the inflation in the charges was due to defective apparatus. The second respondent however rejected the complaint by the reply Ext. P6 and called upon the petitioner to make payment of the balance of Rs. 4258/- due as per the bill dated 21-9-1988. 3. While this matter was pending before the respondents the petitioner was served with another bill Ext. P4 dated 21-11-1988 for an amount of Rs. 4380/-. The petitioner has immediately complained about this bill as well by his representation Ext. P5 pointing out the defective apparatus as the reason. 4. It has been the established view of this court that when inflation in the bills is alleged consequent on defective apparatus, the matter requires reference under S.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The reference is imperative and constitutes the procedure prescribed by the Act, for adjudication of such a dispute. Without following this procedure, it is not open to the respondents to insist on payment of the disputed amounts. Admittedly no reference has been made by the respondents in relation to the bills issued to the petitioner and complained about by him. On the other hand what the respondents have purported to do is to conduct an enquiry of their own and to conclude that the bills issued do not call for any modification. 5. The petitioner has already paid about one third of the demand as per the bill dated 21-9-1988. On the other hand what the respondents have purported to do is to conduct an enquiry of their own and to conclude that the bills issued do not call for any modification. 5. The petitioner has already paid about one third of the demand as per the bill dated 21-9-1988. The amount demanded as per Ext. P4 remains to be paid. 6. The original petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to the respondents to make reference of the dispute raised by the petitioner in relation to the two bills dated 21-9-1988 and 21-11-1988 for his telephone connection 354339 to arbitration under S.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Such reference shall be made as expeditiously as possible. The Arbitrator shall dispose of the reference expeditiously after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard. 7. Pending disposal of the reference by the Arbitrator, collection of the balance amount due as per the bill dated 21-9-1988 shall be kept in abeyance. Collection of the amount due as per the bill Ext. P4 shall be stayed on condition that the petitioner pays an amount of Rs. 1200/- towards the said demand within a period of two weeks from today. If the amount is not paid the stay will not operate so far as the demand made in Ext. P4 is concerned. The original petition is disposed of as above.