JUDGMENT D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The award passed by the Arbitrator under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" on 8.6.1993 in TPBJ Cases No. 1/18 (Annexure 6) is assailed by the petitioner in this writ application. 2. The petitioner Shri Pradeep Dash is the subscriber to Telephone No. 31678 at Cuttack. As stated in the writ application, the telephone has been installed at the residence of the petitioner since 1989, it has STD facility. The petitioner raised a dispute in respect of three bills dated 1.7.1991 for Rs. 3,513/-, dated 1.9.1991 for Rs. 8,611/- and dated 1.11.1991 for Rs. 3,563/- alleging that the bills grossly high, excessive and erroneous. According to the petitioner he had not put the telephone to heavy use to the extent which would justify such heavy demands. Referring to the bills raised for the periods proceeding and succeeding the period under dispute, the petitioner stated that demands had never exceeded Rs. 500/- and therefore, he apprehended that the meter reading was erroneous or the meter was tampered with. On this ground he disputed the liability to pay the amounts stated in the three bills in question. 3. Since the departmental authorities failed to take any action for redress of his grievance, he approached this court in O.J.C. No. 3789 of 1992, which was disposed of by order dated 3.7.1992. In the said order this court directed the apposite parties to take steps refer the dispute relating to the bills in question to an Arbitrator within six weeks and the further directed that the Arbitrator shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. In pursuance of the said order. Sri C. Narendranath, Telecom District Engineer, Balangir was appointed as Arbitrator by the Central Government vide order of the Asst. Director (General)(Te) dated 16.9.1992 (Annexure 2). The arbitrator gave notice to the parties to file their claims and counter claims. The petitioner filed his claim (Annexure 3) and the opposite party No. 4, Telecom District Manager, Cuttack-1 filed his counter statement (Annexure 4) and the petitioner filed a rejoinder to the said counter (Annexure 5). The Arbitrator heard the parties. Considering the case of the parties and their arguments he passed the award dated 8.6.1993 (Annexure 6) holding that the claimant is not entitled to any rebate for the bills dated 1.7.91, 1.9.91 and 1.11.91. The Arbitrator heard the parties. Considering the case of the parties and their arguments he passed the award dated 8.6.1993 (Annexure 6) holding that the claimant is not entitled to any rebate for the bills dated 1.7.91, 1.9.91 and 1.11.91. The said award is challenged in this writ petition. 4. The main ground of attack against the award is that the Arbitrator has not stated reasons for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to any rebate for the bills in questions; that he has not considered all the allegations made and the contentions raised by the petitioner against the bills. The petitioner further contention is that the Arbitrator has not considered whether the necessary safeguards specified in the departmental instructions issued on 9.4.1986 were observed by the opposite parties in the case. 5. Section 7B of the Act reads as follows : "7 B. Arbitration of disputes - (1) Except as 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 determined by arbitration and shall for the purposes of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Centre Govt. 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." From the aforementioned statutory provision, it is clear that finality is attached to the award of the Arbitrator and no challenge against it in any court is permitted. Therefore, the general scheme of the Arbitration Act is not applicable to the statutory arbitration under the Act. From the award (Annexure-6) it is manifest that the Arbitrator had not only considered the claim and counter claim made by the parties but he perused the details of meter reading statement for the entire period and M.L.O.E. report for 6.8.1991 to 13.8.1991. He observed that during the period within eight days from 6.8.1991 to 13.8.1991, 601 calls have been recorded and the STD facilities had been utilised extensively, i.e., 75 calls per day. He observed that during the period within eight days from 6.8.1991 to 13.8.1991, 601 calls have been recorded and the STD facilities had been utilised extensively, i.e., 75 calls per day. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Arbitrator had not considered the relevant materials or that there was no basis for the conclusion arrived at in the award. 6. Coming to the contention that the Arbitrator has not given any reason for his conclusion in the award, the position is neither factually correct nor legaly tenable. The contentions raised by the parties and the materials produced no behalf of the department in support of their contention there was no error in the bills in question have been considered by the Arbitrator. He has stated that he carefully considered the case of the parties and perused the detailed meter reading statement for the entire period and the M.L.O.E. report for the period 6.8.1991 to 13.8.1991. Therefore, the award is not a bald, cryptic or unreasoned award as alleged by the petitioner. Moreover, Section 7-B does not require the Arbitrator to state reasons in the award. No other statutory provision laying down such a requirement is brought to our notice. Further, the position is well settled that the award cannot be set aside merely on the ground that the Arbitrator has not stated any reason in the award. 7. On consideration of the entire matter, we have no hesitation to hold that in the present case the award (Annexure 6) is neither vitiated by any serious illegality or infirmity nor is it manifestly erroneous. Therefore, we find little scope to interfere with it. 8. The writ application being devoid of merit is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any order for cost. Petition dismissed. *-*-*-*-*