Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. In the present writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the demand in respect of Telephone Nos.657926 and 350983 as contained in annexures 8 and 10. 2. Counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit as well as show cause petition and reply thereto have been filed on behalf of the respondents and the-petitioner respectively. From the pleadings of the parties we find that a serious dispute in regard to the raising of the bills aforementioned has been raised by the petitioner. The respondents have controverted the same and have stated that the Bills has been raised according to the detailed report of the STD/1sd a photo stat copies whereof have been annexed as Annexure a to f to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respon-dents. In view of the disputed question of facts we find it difficult to deter-mine the same in the writ jurisdiction, However, as rightly suggested by the learned Counsel for the parties, the said dispute can be resolved by an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government under section 7-B of the indian Telegraph Act, 1985. 3. It appears that the petitioner, vide annexure-9 to the writ application has already raised the dispute in respect of the bills in question as far back as on 30th July, 1993 before the General Manager (Telephones) Patna district, District, Telephones Patna. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ appli-cation with the direction to the General Manager, (Telephones), Patna Distriet telephones, Patna (respondent no.1) to refer the dispute to the Central government for appointment of an Arbitrator within two weeks from today for determination of the same. The petitioner shall be at liberty to submit a fresh repiescntation raising dispute in relation to the disputed bills along with the materials, if any, in support thereof before the General Manager within a week from today, which, the General Manager shall forward about with the earlier representation to the Central Government for the purpose of appoint-ment of an arbitrator under section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985, the Central Government shall appoint the Arbitrator within one month from the date of receipt of the reference before the General Manager, Telephones. 4. 4. As the dispute relates to defective billing by the computer, we considerable that the Central Government should appoint a technical expert in the Computer since as a sole arbitrator or at least as one of the Arbitrators, as, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is considered to be fit and proper. The Arbitrators so appointed, shall examine the dispute and submit its decision within a month of their appointment. 5. Mrs. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sub-mitted that in the meantime, the petitioner be directed to pay at least half of the disputed amount. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in CWJC no.3b67 disposed of on 23 6.93. The Division Bench in the said case after considering the various provisions of the Post and Telegraph Manual as well as the Circular dated 9th April, 1986, which provides elaborate guidelines to be followed by the officials in the case regarding excess billing, held that the disputed bill has to be cancelled and two bills should be prepared-one to include charge which are correctly payable by including local calls, local call charge being computed to be equal to the average number of calls metered during the six bi montly periods (one year) immediately preceding the disputed periods plus 10% over the average, and that the second bill prepard for the balance and marked as "part local call bills (disputed)", and the subscriber is required to pay the first bill within 7 days of the notics and on failure to pay the same the telephone connection may be disconnected. So for as the second bill is concerned, the subscriber is not required to pay the amount till the matter is decided according to elaborate procedure provided under the aforesaid Manual and the Government guidelines and circular datde 9.4.1986. 6. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to raise a fresh demand in respect of the disputed bills on the basis of the average of the number of calls metered during six bi monthly period (one year) immediately preceding the disputed period plus 10% over and above the average. 7. It goes without saying that the said bill shall be prepared after deducting the amount which has already been paid by the petitioner in respect of the disputed bills. 7. It goes without saying that the said bill shall be prepared after deducting the amount which has already been paid by the petitioner in respect of the disputed bills. The petitioner shall pay the dues, raised in the said bill within seven days of the notice, on failure of which, the respondents shall be entitled to disconnect the telephone. The respondents shall also prepare the second bill as part local call bills (disputed) in respect of the balance amount, which the petitoner shall not be required to pay till the matter is decided by the arbitrator according to law. 8. It is made clear that the line of the petitoner shall not be disconnec-ted on account of the non-payment of the aforementioned second bill till the arbitrator decides, but the petitioner shall continue to pay the Current bills, in default thereof, the respondents s hall be entitled to disconnechhe telephone line in accordance with law. The writ application accordingly stands disposed of. Order accordingly.