JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited has invoked the extraodinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the Award passed by the Deputy General Manager (I.T – I), Chennai Telephones in exercise of powers under Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 2. In a suit filed by way of public interest in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, a direction was issued to the Department of Telecommunications to take necessary action for recovery of the dues to the Department of Telecommunications. 3. As the petitioner had raised a bill for a sum of Rs.10,93,197/- for use of telephone by the second respondent for the Delhi Telephone No:3792969 and Rs.17,719/- for the Chennai Telephone No.416220. 4. The dispute was referred for arbitration under Sec. 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The first respondent was appointed as an Arbitrator to determine the claim of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. 5. The claimant and the respondent filed their respective pleadings and also produced documentary evidence. The stand of the respondent was that he was not liable to pay the bill, as it was the case of misuse of telephone by some third parties and the bill did not reflect the calls of the second respondent. 6. The learned Arbitrator considered the respective contentions and documents placed on record and finally came to the conclusion that it was not possible to arrive at any conclusion about the misuse/over use of the telephone connection and thereafter, by extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the second respondent, the first respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner. 7. The conclusion in the Award by the Arbitrator reads as under: 5. Analysis and conclusions:- (a) Considering the gravity of the claim in respect of the outstanding dues, the case of Delhi Telephone No.37929269 shall be taken up first, followed by the case in respect of the Chennai Telephone No.2416220. The analysis is based purely on the documents furnished by the parties concerned. Analysis and conclusions:- (a) Considering the gravity of the claim in respect of the outstanding dues, the case of Delhi Telephone No.37929269 shall be taken up first, followed by the case in respect of the Chennai Telephone No.2416220. The analysis is based purely on the documents furnished by the parties concerned. With respect to the telephone No.37929269, it can be seen from the details that the calls were made to the countries, like, (1) Guyana, (2) Sweden, (3) Hong Kong, (4) Philippines (5) Canada and (6) U.A.E. (b) It has been observed from the calling pattern that the STD calls were made during the day time or in the evening hours, while the ISD calls were made only during the midnights and in the early hours of the mornings. Further, it has been observed that in the entire tenure of the respondent as Member of Parliament (L.S), all the disputed calls have been made only during the period from 01.08.1995 to 31.1.1996 (three months), when the high calling pattern was observed by M.T.N.L, New Delhi. (c) Another point of observation made is that the STD Calls are restricted to Tamil Nadu area only and not to the rest of the country. (d) From the analysis of the documents, it is evident that the STD calls have been made to select telephones only, while the ISD calls were made to limited telephones working in the aforesaid countries. (e) It is observed that the Claimant has failed to establish the relationship between the respondent and the called persons. It is the norm in the Claimant Department that in cases of spurt or unusual or high calling activity in respect of each fort-nightly period, the called telephone numbers are tested and relationship, if any, between the called and caller, is sought to be established to avoid excess metering complaint or the caller is informed of the high calling pattern, and requested to confirm whether they were genuine or otherwise. (f) It is further observed from the documents furished, that it is not possible to establish beyond doubt whether the dynamic facility was provided on these numbers by the Claimant particularly during the period 01.08.1985 to 31.01.1996. (f) It is further observed from the documents furished, that it is not possible to establish beyond doubt whether the dynamic facility was provided on these numbers by the Claimant particularly during the period 01.08.1985 to 31.01.1996. In view of the above, it is not possible to establish beyond doubt that the calls were made by the respondent only and that no misuse has taken place, as the Claimant has failed to establish the fact that there was no misuse on the telephones in question. (g) In respect of the telephone No.416220, the same was installed vide Advice Note No.N-313 dated 08.01.1986 and the work was completed on 14.2.1986. It is observed that this telephone was taken to safe custody vide Advice Note No.Y/754 dated 08.04.1988. (h) It is further observed that no records exist for the subsequent periods to prove that sufficient action has been taken to claim the outstanding dues. Further, a detailed analysis on the calling pattern could not be made for the said period, viz., 14.02.1986 to 08.04.1988 due to lack of detailed billing facility in Chennai Telephones at that point of time. (i) In view of the above, it is not possible for the undersigned to arrive at any conclusion about the misuse/over use of the telephone connection and hence, liable to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the respondent. 6. AWARD:- I, S. Pugazhendhi, Arbitrator and Deputy General Manager (IT)-I, Chennai Telephones, hereby order that the claim of MTNL, New Delhi to the tune of Rs.10,93,197/- (Rupees ten lakhs ninety three thousand one hundred and ninety seven only) in respect of Delhi Telephone No:3792969 and that of Chennai Telephones, to the tune of Rs.17,719/-(Rupees seventeen thousand seven hundred and nineteen only) in respect of Chennai Telephone No.416220 be set aside. There is no order as to cost" 8. The impugned Award is challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground of being perverse, being contrary to the findings recorded by the Arbitrator. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that after recording positive finding that it was not possible for the Arbitrator to arrive at the conclusion about the misuse/over use of the telephone connection, it was not open to the Arbitrator to reject the claim, as it was for respondent to prove misuse/overuse. 9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that after recording positive finding that it was not possible for the Arbitrator to arrive at the conclusion about the misuse/over use of the telephone connection, it was not open to the Arbitrator to reject the claim, as it was for respondent to prove misuse/overuse. 9. It is also contended that in a civil dispute it was not open to the arbitrator to give benefit of doubt, as the civil claims are decided on probabalities and therefore, it was always open to the arbitrator to appreciate pleading and evidence to record a finding. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, vehemently contended, that the Award does not call for interference as this Court cannot sit on appeal over the statutory Award nor can reappraise the pleading and evidence to come to a different conclusion. 11. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as the petitioner challenged the Award after twenty two months of passing of the Award. 12. It is true, that this Court does not sit on appeal and cannot re-appraise the conclusion arrived at by the Arbitrator to arrive at a different conclusion, but at the same time, this Court can certainly interfere when the Award, on the face of it, is perverse therefore not sustainable. 13. The reading of the Award shows that the Arbitrator did not record a finding qua the stand of the second respondent that it was a case of misuse of telephone by the third parties. Inspite of failure to prove the stand the Arbitrator has rejected the claim of the petitioner. The Arbitrator was exercising his statutory powers under Sec.7(b) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, is bound to deal with the contentions raised by the respective parties and to record the reasons for coming to a particular conclusion. 14. It is not open to pass statutory award like the Award under Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 15. The Award, being perverse, on the face of it, is unsustainable in law, as the conclusion drawn is contrary to findings. The Award also does not disclose any reasons to reject the stand of the claimants. 16. 14. It is not open to pass statutory award like the Award under Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 15. The Award, being perverse, on the face of it, is unsustainable in law, as the conclusion drawn is contrary to findings. The Award also does not disclose any reasons to reject the stand of the claimants. 16. As regards the question of delay and laches is concerned, this writ petition stood admitted. The question of delay and laches could be raised at the time of admission of the writ petition. Once the writ petition is admitted, it cannot be rejected on technical grounds. 17. Consequently, for the reasons stated above the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned Award passed by the 1st respondent dated 25.3.2006 is set aside, and the case is remitted back to the General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Khurshid Lal Bhavan, Janpath, New Delhi for appointment of a New Arbitrator to take decision regarding dispute in accordance with law. No costs.