Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is for the following relief: “to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the respondents to refer the dispute between the subscribers of Mayiladuthurai Exchange and the department regarding the working of the telephone lines, apparatus and the inflated reading of the meters to arbitration under S. 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885”. 2. It is unnecessary to refer to the various allegations found in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition for the purpose of disposing of this writ petition. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit, the petitioner has setout various irregularities in the functioning of the telephones at Mayiladuthurai. It appears that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner Association filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 12593 of 1988 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to collect the telephone bill amount dated 1-9-1988 and for the subsequent periods from the subscribers. When the said writ petition came up for bearing, the respondents took up a stand that the only remedy available to the petitioner is to ask for an arbitration under the provisions of S. 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act In view of that, the earlier writ petition was dismissed. As a consequence of the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The only relief asked for in this writ petition is to refer the matter for arbitration under S. 7-B of the Act. This cannot be objected to by the respondents at this stage. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it is necessary that each subscriber should file separate application for arbitration and in support of his contention, he relies upon a judgment of a Bench of this Court dated 23-1-1989 in Tamil Nadu Chamber of Commerce and Industries v. Secretary, Department of Telecommunications 1, wherein it was held that each subscriber has got an individual cause of action and, therefore, each case has got to be determined depending upon the facts and circumstances of that particular case. I find that the said judgment will not apply to a case where the grievance is common to all the subscribers. I find that the said judgment will not apply to a case where the grievance is common to all the subscribers. Of course, in so far as the individual grievances in respect of excess billing or the defective metering of individual telephones are concerned, they will have to be considered independently, on proper applications being filed by such subscribers. In so far as the complaints of irregularities in the matter of functioning of the telephone lines, which are common to all the subscribers, are concerned, I do not find any ground to insist upon individual applications being file J for arbitration. If such a direction is given, it will only create further anomaly and no useful purpose would be served by entertaining thousands of applications and I am sure, the department will not be in a position to deal with so many arbitrations when the department finds it difficult even to run its exchanges in a proper manner. In these circumstances, there will be a direction to the effect that if an application is made by the petitioner Association seeking arbitration under S. 7-B of the Act within two weeks from this date, it shall be referred to an arbitrator as per the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act. On such application being filed, the authorities concerned shall refer the matter for arbitration within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the application. It is made clear that while dealing with such an application to be filed by the petitioner Association, it is not necessary for the arbitrator to go into the individual grievances relating to the excess billing etc. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.