JUDGMENT 1. -The controversy involved in the present case is covered in favour of the appellant by latest judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Saji Geevarghese v. Accounts Officer (Telephone Revenue) & Ors. reported in AIR 2009 SC 785 , wherein in para 7 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:- "7. Section 7B of the Telegraph Act, 1885 makes the awards of Arbitrators final and conclusive between parties. The only remedy available to a subscriber aggrieved by an award is to seek judicial review by way of a writ petition. The High Court will not however sit in appeal over the Award, but will only examine its correctness and legality, within the limited confines of judicial review. (Vide M.L.Jaggi v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., 1996(3) SCC 119 ). We have examined the award keeping in view the aforesaid principles. The facts disclosed by the telecom department in the affidavits filed by the department before the High Court, show that the award of the Arbitrator suffers from non application of mind which had led to several apparent, in fact, glaring errors of fact and law. We may refer to some of them briefly." 2. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition only on the ground that the petitioner should pursue appropriate remedy under the Arbitration laws. This being clearly contrary to the dictum of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, we left with no option but to allow the appeal. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored back to the record of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge to decide the matter now on merits most expeditiously.Appeal Allowed *******