Judgment R.A.Sharma, J. 1. Being aggrieved by disconnection of her Telephone No. 503901, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit and the petitioner has filed the rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the petitioners husband was having another Telephone No. 308815 and as he failed to clear the dues of the said telephone, it was disconnected. For the same reason viz., non-clearance of the dues of Telephone No. 308815 belonging to her husband, the petitioners Telephone No. 503901 has also been disconnected on 10.11.1997. 4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that for nonpayment of dues of another telephone belonging to her husband the petitioners telephone could not have been disconnected, and in support of the said submission reliance is placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Union of India V/s. Sarda Colour Lab 1997 (2) PLJR 652, as well as decision in the cases of Santokh Singh V/s. Divisional Engineer Telephones, Shillong and Ors. AIR 1990 Gauhati 47 and V. Pridhvi Kumar V/s. The General Manager, Telecom District, Hyderabad -- . In the above cases it has been laid down that a telephone cannot be disconnected merely because there are outstanding dues against another telephones number belonging to the same or another subscriber. 5. The learned Counsel for the Union of India has submitted that against the disconnection of the telephone the petitioner has alternative remedy of arbitration, and therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground alone. This submission cannot be accepted. It is well settled that when the writ petition is entertained and the parties have exchanged their affidavits, it is not proper to direct the petitioner to avail the alternative forum except in very exceptional cases where it is not possible for the Court, for any good reason, to decide the controversy. In the instant case that is not the position. As mentioned hereinabvoe the controversy has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court as well as decisions of the other two High Courts referred to above. 6. In the instant case that is not the position. As mentioned hereinabvoe the controversy has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court as well as decisions of the other two High Courts referred to above. 6. The two decisions of the Madras High Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents, copies of which have been filed as Annexure-A series of the counter affidavit, cannot be applied in the instant case. In those cases the controversy involved was as to whether a new connection can be given to an applicant when there are dues standing against another telephone number belonging to him or member of his family. 7. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to restore the Telephone No. 503901 forthwith. They are, however, free to recover the outstanding dues from the petitioners husband, if so advised in accordance with law, expeditiously.