Judgment :- Shylendra Kumar, J. The General Manager, Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited is the writ petitioner before this Court and the writ petition is directed against the orders passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bangalkot, in C.C.No.104/08 passed on 31.10.2008 a copy of which is produced at Annexure-D and the affirming order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, in Appeal No.24/09 as per the order dated 25.08.2009 a copy of which is produced at Annexure-E 2. Under the impugned orders, the writ petitioner was required to comply the following order of the District Forum: The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. Opposite Parties are ordered to pay Rs.2,000/-(Rs. Two Thousand only) to the complainant towards mental agony and deficiency in service which includes the refund of amount of Rs.362/-(Rs.Three hundred sixty two only) collected by the Ops towards incoming SMS along with Rs.2,000/-(Rs.Two thousand only) being the cost of this proceedings. The Opposite Parties shall pay the said amount within two months from the date of this order, failure of which they shall pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the complaint till complete realization. Free copy of this order shall be sent to the parties immediately. 3. The State Consumer Forum, by affirming this order has dismissed the appeal and directed transfer of the amount deposited in the State Commission for payment to the complainant. It is aggrieved by these orders the present writ petition is filed. 4. Appearing for the writ petitioner Sri Prakash Kulkarni, submitted that consumer forum lack jurisdiction to entrain a dispute between the consumer and the writ petitioner-BSNL, that it is so because under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, in terms of Section 7B, disputes arising between the consumer and telegraph authorities shall be resolved by arbitration Section 7B reads as under; 7B 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 that dispute of 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. Therefore, he submits, the Consumer Forum should not have entertained the complaint. In support of his submission, Sri Prakash Kulkarni has drawn our attention to a very recent order of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom vs. M. Krishnan & Another Civil Appeal No.7687/04 which was directed against the full Bench judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala passed on 14-2-2003, and therefore submits that the present writ petition will have to be eventually allowed in terms of the judgment, and the complaint dismissed. 5. It is also submitted by Sri Prakash Kulkarni, Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner that initially the dispute between the parties was as to whether the consumer was liable to pay for incoming commercial Short Messaging Service (SMS) which the consumer had received at his volition and for which he was chargeable and which amount the Nigam had reimbursed to persons forwarding the message and which the respondent-consumer, though had paid, nevertheless, disputing such charges being levid raised a dispute and on the further premise that it has caused him mental agony. The amount indicated in the bill in respect of such commercial SMS was Rs.362/-and the entire dispute revolve around this amount. 6. Whether the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction or not, on facts, we find that it was a case for allowing the complaint and not only reliving the consumer from the liability to pay the amount, but in addition, it was a fit case to award compensatory damages for the mental agony suffered by him. The District Forum had in all awarded Rs.2,000/-towards this head and further Rs.2,000/-towards litigation expenses with interest at 10% p.a. 7. The State Commission after a detailed examination of the entire circumstances, was of the view that the District Forum had not committed any error at all in passing the impugned order and therefore, dismissed the appeal. While we notice that the writ petitioner had never raised the issue of jurisdiction before the District Forum or State Commission, the submission of Sri Prakash Kulkarni is that the judgment of the Supreme Court now placed before this Court was not available at that point of time and therefore, the writ petitioner-Nigam could not raise this ground. While we notice that the writ petitioner had never raised the issue of jurisdiction before the District Forum or State Commission, the submission of Sri Prakash Kulkarni is that the judgment of the Supreme Court now placed before this Court was not available at that point of time and therefore, the writ petitioner-Nigam could not raise this ground. 8. In fact, we find the writ petitioner has actually acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the District Forum. Even otherwise, the question of jurisdiction, being one which has to be specifically raised and defended, and if the forum lacks jurisdiction, it is not because of the order of the Supreme Court cited before us, but since inception, that the consumer forum lacks jurisdiction, and therefore, if the question of jurisdiction had not been made an issue, we are of the view that it is unnecessary for us to examine a matter of this nature in writ jurisdiction, particularly having regard to the meager amount of dispute involved and having regard to the facts that two authorities have concurrently, held against the writ petitioner on facts. 9. We are not at all inclined to exercise the jurisdiction vested under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in matter of this nature notwithstanding the order of the Supreme Court placed before us. On the other hand, we find that the petitioner is entitled to the right of revision under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, for which purpose it can present a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Without prejudice to the other remedies available to the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed.