MUKUL MUDGAL ( 1 ) ( 2 ) TAKEN up today for final hearing with the,consent of the parties. ( 3 ) THIS writ petition challenges the award of the arbitrator under Section 7 (b) of Indian Telegraph Act. The award is reasoned one. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied Upon the following observation of the arbitrator: "the Respondent which is a Government public Sector Unit, is bound to collect the outstanding from the subscribers for the welfare of the common man and any order which may amount to stoppage of recovery of these amounts would amount to creating obstruction in the welfare of the people. That would be the last thing the undersigned would want. "according to him, the above observation, disclosed the predetermined approach of the Arbitrator, resulting in dismissal of the claim. In my view the above observations are general in nature and cannot vitiate the award on the ground of bias particularly when the Award is a reasoned one. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submitted that dues/claims by MTNL are barred by time. This fact was noticed by the Arbitrator. The arbitrator upheld the plea of the MTNL that the limitation would operate in case a suit for recovery had been filed. In the present case no suit for recovery had been filed by the MTNL inviting the bar of 1 imitation. Therefore, reasoning of the Arbitrator is unassailable. In so far as the plea of the petitioner regarding action on the complaint of misuser is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner states that no action was taken by the MTNL on the complaint made by the petitioner s letter dated 30/04/1997 regarding the mis-user of the facility. The aforesaid letter itself shows that it was in response to a bill and an-earlier letter dated 21/03/1997 has been referred to in the said letter dated 30/04/1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to show the said letter dated 21/03/1997 and is unable to state whether in the said letter mis-user of the facilities was averred, There is no follow up of the letter dated 30/04/1997 and it also appeared to be in response to the bill issued by the respondent, the Arbitrator also found that there were several organisations operating from the premises which had the petitioner as an important functionary in all such organisations. This reasoning and the finding of the arbitrator cannot be faulted. ( 5 ) THE other pleas raised by the petitioner in respect of the arbitrator s award impugned are wholly factual in nature not liable to be questioned in the Writ jurisdiction. In any event, the arbitrator has given reasons for deciding all the issues which arose before him. ( 6 ) THE writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed, with no orders as to costs.