Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the correctness of an award given by the arbitrator who is the General manager (Finance) Bihar Telecom circle, Patna. The said award is dated 16th April, 1996. There is dispute between the petitioner and the department of Telecommunication Bihar circle Patna in respect to the amount of bill which has been raised by the telecommunication Department in respect of Telephone No.221468. 2. From the recital as contained in the award it appears that prior to the said award in question the petitioner filed a complaint before the Consumer forum, and the District Consumer forum referred the dispute to arbitration. In pursuance to the said order of the Forum, the dispute has been decided by the arbitrator. It is not in dispute that in matters of deciding such dispute there is a provision in Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the said act ). Under Sec.7-B of the said act the dispute relating to the amount of bill which has been raised can be referred to the arbitrator. The provisions of Sec.7-B of the said act are set out below:- "7-B Arbitration of disputes: - (1) Except as otherwise 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 Central government either specially for the determination of the 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. " 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not disputed before me that the nature of dispute which has been referred to the arbitrator cannot be referred under section 7-B of the Act. In that view of the matter, this court holds that the consumer Forum has rightly decided the point in referring the matter to the arbitrator, inasmuch as, the Court proceeds on the basis that the dispute in question can be referred to the arbitration under Sec.7-B of the Act. 4. In that view of the matter, this court holds that the consumer Forum has rightly decided the point in referring the matter to the arbitrator, inasmuch as, the Court proceeds on the basis that the dispute in question can be referred to the arbitration under Sec.7-B of the Act. 4. From a perusal of Clause (2) of section 7-B of the said Act it appears that 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. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in this case is questioning the correctness of the decision given by the arbitrator who decided the dispute relating to the bills during the period from 1-14989 to 1-11-1990. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the arbitrator has decided the dispute on the basis of certain assumption as indicated in Para-8 of the arbitration award. It is also stated that the said dispute has not been decided on the facts of the case. Learned Counsel further stated that the print out of bills for the period in question, namely, 1-1-1990 to 1-11-1990 was not made available to the petitioner. 6. From the counter-affidavit which has been filed in this proceeding it appears from Annexure-D that before the arbitrator the stand which was taken by the department of telecommunication is that during the period in question there was no provision of print-out and as such the print-out was not produced before the arbitrator. From Annexure-D it also appears that a copy of fortnightly meter reading of the telephone in question was enclosed alongwith letter dated 4th January, 1995 signed by the assistant Engineer (Legal) Office of the G. M. Telecom, District Patna. Therefore, the arbitrator has based his decision on those materials. 7. In Paragraph-8 of the Award the arbitrator found that the telephone was working throughout the period and the meter reading was checked and found correct by the concerned authorities. It also points out that being a business house and having the std facility it was quite possible for the subscriber to make frequent STD calls which resulted in high local calls. 8. The award of the arbitrator is based on reasons. Therefore, this court cannot hold that the view which has been taken by the arbitrator is not a possible view. 8. The award of the arbitrator is based on reasons. Therefore, this court cannot hold that the view which has been taken by the arbitrator is not a possible view. It may be that the view which the court would taken in the similar situation is a different view, but that unfortunately is no ground for setting aside the award. It is well known normally an award of an arbitrator cannot be interfered with under Article-226 of the Constitution, but the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the learned single Judge in the case of 5. Kanyalal V/s. Union of india and others, AIR 1990 Andhra pradesh page 1. In the said judgment the learned Judge discussed various decisions and came to the conclusion that in a case where bias is alleged against the arbitrator, the award is liable to be questioned under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. In this case no bias is alleged against the arbitrator, therefore, the said ground is ruled out. The award is a reasoned one. It cannot be said that the arbitrator has given no reason in the said decision. In the instant case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner wanted to assail the award of the arbitrator factually and on merits. In my view, the same is not permissible. The writ court will not go into the award of the arbitrator factually and entertain any challenge for re-appraisal of the award on the materials which have been considered by the arbitrator. 10. In that view of the matter, this court is of the view that it is not possible for this court to interfere with the award. For the reasons aforesaid, it is not possible for this court to pass any order in favour of the petitioner in this case. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.