JUDGMENT - H.W. DHABE, J.:---Parties by Counsel. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that there is excessive billing on his telephone which for nonpayment of the excessive bill is illegally disconnected by the Telephone Department. 3. The facts are that the petitioner is having telephone No. 2775 (Vasco). The grievance of the petitioner is that he has received excessive bill on his telephone for the following periods : from 1-02-1990 to 31-03-1990 --- Rs. 6,796.90 from 1-04-1990 to 31-05-1990 --- Rs. 6,429.00 from 1-10-1990 to 31-12-1990 --- Rs. 16,465.00 from 1-12-1990 to 31-01-1991 --- Rs. 3,733.00 4. According to him for the period from 1-2-1990 to 31-3-1990 the bill was split up into two bills of Rs. 527/- + Rs. 6269/-, out of which he has paid Rs. 527/-. To his complaint in regard to the excess bill for the above period, the Telephone Department informed him by its letter dated 26-6-1990 that his complaint was thoroughly examined and it was found that his meter was working alright and no defects were noticed. However, a benefit of doubt was given to him and the total bill of Rs. 6269/- towards local calls was reduced by the Department to Rs. 3185/-. As regards the bill for the period from 1-4-1990 to 31-5-1990 the said bill was split up into two i.e. Rs. 1922/- + Rs. 4507/-. As regards the bill of Rs. 4507/- the same was kept for investigation. However nothing was communicated to the petitioner in that regard. The bill of Rs. 1922/- was paid by the petitioner to the Department. As regards the bill of Rs. 16,465/- for a period from 1-10-1990 to 31-12-1990 the said bill was split up into two bills, out of which the bill in the amount of Rs. 1495/- was paid by the petitioner. The balance amount of the bill was kept for investigation. However nothing was communicated to the petitioner in that regard. As regards the period from 1-12-1990 to 31-1-1991 the bill for Rs. 3733/- was sent to the petitioner which was disputed by him as excessive. The Telephone Department did not split up the bill and the full amount was directed to be paid by the petitioner. However nothing was communicated to the petitioner in that regard. As regards the period from 1-12-1990 to 31-1-1991 the bill for Rs. 3733/- was sent to the petitioner which was disputed by him as excessive. The Telephone Department did not split up the bill and the full amount was directed to be paid by the petitioner. However, according to the petitioner the said amount was not paid by him as in the meanwhile on 17-12-1990 his telephone connection was disconnected by the Department for nonpayment of the bills. 5. The petitioner has raised the dispute about all these bills by his complaints made to the Department from time to time. The last complaint about the excessive billing was made to the Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, Maharashtra Circle, Bombay in April, 1990, a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure at page 17 of the petition. The petitioner had also raised the dispute in the matter of the telephone bills for the above period under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Goa a copy of which is enclosed at page 19 of the petition. Since the petitioner had taken recourse to the remedy under the above Act, the learned Counsel for the Department had raised a preliminary objection before us that in view of the alternate remedy available to the petitioner under the above Act we should not entertain the instant writ petition. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had urged before us the said remedy was not an efficacious remedy. Authority under the above Act had no power to direct reconnection of his telephone. When it was pointed out to the petitioner that the reconnection of his telephone cannot be directed except when the whole dispute about excess bill is considered by this Court and the appropriate directions are issued in that regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner had chosen to withdraw his application under the above Act. Accordingly the application under the above Act is withdrawn and therefore, the above objection raised on behalf of the Department does not survive for consideration. 7. Accordingly the application under the above Act is withdrawn and therefore, the above objection raised on behalf of the Department does not survive for consideration. 7. The learned Counsel for the Department has also raised another preliminary objection that in view of section 26 of the Civil Courts Act, 1965 which requires a statutory notice to be given where a Government is a party to the suit the instant writ petition is not maintainable. At any rate the submission is that there is an alternative remedy of a civil suit available to the petitioner and therefore, we should not entertain the instant writ petition. It is well settled that the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. However the existence of an alternative and efficacious remedy is a factor which is taken into consideration by the High Court in the exercise of its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The fact that there is a remedy of a civil suit available to the petitioner would not mean that in the facts of the instant case it is an adequate alternate remedy available to him. The relief which is sought by the petitioner is of reference of his dispute to arbitration under section 7-B of the Telegraphs Act and the restoration of his telephone connection. If he is relegated to a civil suit it can take a long time for getting the necessary relief. In the facts of the instant case it cannot be said that a civil suit is an adequate remedy for the petitioner. See in this regard the judgment of the Supreme Court in (M/s. Hyderabad Commercials v. Indian Bank)1, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 247, para 5. Hence the above objection raised on behalf of the Department is rejected. 8. On merits it may be seen that perusal of the copy of the application under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 referred to above shows that for the periods earlier and even during some periods intervening in between the above periods the petitioner had received the telephone bills less than Rs. 1000 i.e. from Rs. 207/- to Rs. 676/-. On the basis of the bills which were in the amount of Rs. 638/- and Rs. 1000 i.e. from Rs. 207/- to Rs. 676/-. On the basis of the bills which were in the amount of Rs. 638/- and Rs. 676/- for the periods from 1-6-1990 to 31-7-1990 and from 1-8-1990 to 30-9-1990 respectively. The learned Counsel for the Department has submitted before us that the billing is correct and there is no fault or defect in billing because for this period the bill is not much. According to him for the other periods for which the bill is disputed by the petitioner, the petitioner must have used the telephone himself extensively as he is a businessman for which reason the billing was high for the said periods. 8-A. It is difficult to appreciate the above submission made on behalf of the Department because the letter dated 26-6-1990 addressed to the petitioner by the Department shows that although according to the Department the meter was working alright and there were no defects noticed still the Department has reduced the bill for the period from 1-2-1990 to 31-3-1990 to half giving the petitioner the benefit of doubt. The above letter dated 26-6-1990 shows that the Department itself has doubts about the working of its meter. The fact that in the intervening period the bill is low may also show that the working of the meter is erratic. There is thus a clear case for investigation in this matter by referring the dispute of the petitioner in regard to excessive billing for the above periods to arbitration above periods. 9. In the result the instant writ petition partly succeeds. The respondents are directed to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner about the excessive telephone bills for the period referred to in para 3 of this judgment to arbitration under section 7-B of the Telegraphs Act and until the decision in arbitration proceedings they are directed to restore the telephone connection of the petitioner without reconnection charges, but on payment of Rs. 750/- for each of the periods subject to adjustment finally in the arbitration proceedings. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs in this petition. Order accordingly. *****