R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is the subscriber in regard to telephone bearing No. 576117 (Bangalore ). The telephone was installed on 25-6-1973 and STD facility was barred on 23-7-1982. A bill dated 11-10-89 (Ann. L) relating to the period 25-7-89 to 25-9-1989, was served on the petitioner for Rs. 16,648/ -. Petitioner gave a complaint that the bill was excessive. Pending investigation into the said complaint, a provisional bill was issued for Rs. 2,204/- taking into account his earlier bills, keeping the balance of Rs. 14,444/- in abeyance. The Department thereafter sent a letter dated 17-1-1990 informing the petitioner that their investigation showed that there was no malfunctioning of the meter or fault in the system leading to erroneous metering; and that even though telephone was STD barred, repeated attempts made from the petitioner's telephone to get STD had succeeded on quite a few occasions and therefore, the bill was in order. Feeling aggrieved petitioner filed W. P. No. 15332/1990. That petition was disposed of by this Court on 27-5-1991 directing the department to refer the dispute under Section 7 (B) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885. Accordingly the dispute was referred to the fourth respondent who had made a reasoned award dated 28-11-1991 (Ann. X) holding that the bill dated 11-10-1989 for Rs. 16,648/- is in order and the subscriber is liable to make payment. Feeling aggrieved petitioner has filed this petition for quashing Annexures L and X. ( 2 ) SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 7b of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 provides that the award of the arbitrator shall be conclusive between the parties and shall not be questioned in any Court. The statutory remedy under the Arbitration Act to challenge an award is not available for challenging an award under the Telegraph Act. Therefore the only remedy is to challenge the award in a writ petition. It is no doubt true that this court in its writ jurisdiction does not act as a Court of appeal in regard to an award of arbitrator. The scope of judicial review is very limited in regard to findings of fact arrived at by the arbitrator. Therefore the only remedy is to challenge the award in a writ petition. It is no doubt true that this court in its writ jurisdiction does not act as a Court of appeal in regard to an award of arbitrator. The scope of judicial review is very limited in regard to findings of fact arrived at by the arbitrator. This Court will interfere with an award of the arbitrator only where (i) the procedure adopted by the arbitrator or the award, is arbitrary or unreasonable or opposed to principles of natural justice; and (ii) bias or mala fides is made out on the part of the arbitrator. This Court will not interfere merely on the ground that the evidence was insufficient. But if the finding is based on no evidence at all, this Court may interfere with the award. ( 3 ) IN this case, the award is based on the premise that even though a subscriber's telephone is STD barred,it is possible to make STD calls, through such STD barred telephone; and a finding that in fact STD calls have been so made from petitioner's telephone during the relevant period and therefore the bill is in order. ( 4 ) RULE 451 (A) of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 provides that the subscriber trunk Dialing (STD) barring facility may be availed of by the subscriber without any charge at the time when the new line is being installed for the first time or thereafter by paying a particular fee. When the Rules provide for barring of subscriber Trunk Dialing facility and when it is admitted by the department that at the relevant point of time, STD facility had been barred in petitioner's telephone, the Department cannot explain away excessive calls by merely contending that in spite of such barring, STD calls were made from the telephone. It is not the case of the department that the subscriber is put on notice, either statutorily or by contract, as a condition of barring STD facility, that in spite of such STD barring, it may be possible to make STD calls from a phone and if any such STD calls are found to have been made from the telephone either on account of any defect in the system or on account of STD barring circuitry not being foolproof, the consumer will be liable for such calls. When a consumer is told that STD facility has been barred at his request, he is led to believe that it is not possible to make STD calls from his telephone. If the telephone is in a business premises and the consumer is under the impression that it is not possible to make STD calls, he may not keep a strict vigil over the telephone to ensure that STD calls are not made. On the other hand, if he had been put on notice that barring of STD facility is not hundred per cent safe method of preventing STD calls and it may still be possible to make STD calls, he may take steps to prevent unauthorised STD calls. In the absence of such notice, the department cannot charge for STD calls in the absence of proof of tampering or fraud or clear proof that during any particular period, the STD barring circuit was not functioning. Therefore, if the department wants to contend that STD calls were in fact made from petitioner's telephone and that petitioner was liable therefore, the burden is very heavy on the telecom department to prove misuse; and the evidence placed by the department must be irrefutable and not based on mere surmises. ( 5 ) A similar question arose in the case of Rao and Co. v. The Accounts Officer, DET Office, Panaji, AIR 1986 Bom 227 . The Bombay High Court observed that where STD facility is barred or removed, there was no question of making STD calls from such STD barred telephone. The Court held that unless it was demonstrated by the Department that a telephone in regard to the which STD facility has been barred can still be used for STD calls, the authorities cannot be permitted to make a claim for STD calls merely on a bald statement that such a thing is possible in regard to a STD barred telephone. ( 6 ) THE department has not produced any proof before the arbitrator to show that it was possible to make STD calls from a STD barred telephone, even though STD barring was in effect and barring device or circuit was not defective. Nor has the department placed any evidence to show that STD calls were made from the petitioner's telephone, even though STD barring facility was in effect. Nor has the department placed any evidence to show that STD calls were made from the petitioner's telephone, even though STD barring facility was in effect. The arbitrator has tried to distinguish the decision of the Bombay High Court on the ground that there was no material evidence in that case, to prove clandestine use of STD. He has held that the documents produced by the department in this case, that is computerised observations and trunk calls bills have established that subscriber had clandestinely made use of STD facility though officially barred. ( 7 ) THE arbitrator has misread the decision of the Bombay High Court. He has also not appreciated the difference between the nature of evidence required in cases where STD facility is barred, and nature of evidence required in cases where STD facility is not barred, when the dispute relates to excess billing. Assuming that the computerised observation attributed certain calls to certain telephone number, the possibility of defect in the equipment/system or misuse by the departmental staff cannot be ruled out. To foist liability on a consumer there should be a finding based on proof that STD calls can be made from a STD barred telephone; and that STD calls were in fact made from the said telephone. The department did not let in any proof to show that it is possible to make STD calls from STD barred telephone. On the other hand the evidence clearly showed that there was no fault in the STD barring circuitry. The arbitrator has accepted the departmental's contention that in old electro-mechanical exchanges repeated attempts to get STD on a STD barred telephone results in damage to STD barring circuitry, which is some cases subsequently allow STD calls without any proof. If surmises instead of proof should be the basis for a decision, then as contended by the petitioner, it is equally possible to assume that the system was defective or that the exchange staff had tampered with the lines and permitted STD facilities illegally to a particular user of a telephone with or without STD facility, and then attributed such calls to the telephone of an innocent subscriber like petitioner and that such misuse by departmental staff resulted in an excess bill in the case of petitioners' telephone. The arbitrator has referred to Form B, Indoor Report which showed that no fault was found in STD barring circuitry. The arbitrator has referred to Form B, Indoor Report which showed that no fault was found in STD barring circuitry. He has also referred to AE's report, MLOE and daily meter reading to infer that by continuously trying for STD calls, the subscriber often succeeded in making STD calls. But there is no reference to any technical opinion or scientifically accepted report that it is possible to make STD calls from a STD barred telephone by constant trying of STD numbers. Inferences should be from proved facts and mere possibilities cannot take the place of proof. ( 8 ) IN view of the above, the impugned award based on an assumption that it is possible to make STD calls from a STD barred telephone without any technical evidence or proof and that STD calls were made from the petitioner's telephone by constant trying to make STD calls, cannot be sustained. ( 9 ) HENCE this petition is allowed and the Award (Ann. X) is quashed. The arbitrator shall reconsider the matter and decide the matter in accordance with law. It is also open to the parties if they mutually agree to seek a negotiating settlement by reference to the telephone adalat. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .