9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d facilities including telephone facility. Such facility is governed under the Housing and Telephone Facilities (Members of Parliament) Rules 1956. The said Rule has been framed in exercise of the power conferred by the Central Government under the Salary and Allowances of Member of Parliament's Act, 1954. In terms of the aforesaid Rules, as it stood prior to the amendment on 30th August, 1997, a Member of Parliament was entitled to have one telephone at his residence or office at New Delhi and another telephone at his usual place of residence or at a place selected by him and was provided with 25,000 free calls per annum, from each telephone. The calls made from the said two telephones are pooled together and thus, a Member of Parliament is not required to make the payment in respect of 50,000 calls from the two telephones, during a year. The excess calls made over and above the pooled 50,000 free calls per annum can also be adjusted against the 50,000 free calls for the next year. In terms of Rules 444 to 453 of P & T Manual (Volume-XIV), the charges for the local calls to the extent of 50,000 calls in respect of the two telephones in a year are borne by the Lok Sabha/Rajya S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments in M/s. Fly Wings Travels (P) Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and another, AIR 1995 Delhi, 71, M.L. Jaggi v. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2476. 3. Per contra, Mr. P.R. Barik, learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 states that the petitioner being a member of Parliament was using the telephone beyond the limit prescribed and he used both local and STD facilities. For such use, liberal bills were issued to the Lok Sabha Secretariat, the petitioner being a liberal user facilities exhausted its quota and went into arrears of the dues and supported the award stating that the petitioner having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and having participated in the proceeding, cannot be allowed to contend that the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to pass the award, which is absolutely a misconceived one. He further stated that the award passed by the Arbitrator is just and reasonable one and does not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition being devoid of any merits. 4. On the basis of the facts pleaded above, the following questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irement of the provisions contained under Section 7B of the Act has been complied with. There is no infirmity in appointing Mr. B. Mallik, the then Director (RTTC), Bhubaneswar as Arbitrator pursuant to Annexure-1 and such appointment can be construed as an appointment by the Central Government as required under law. Such argument has been duly controverted by Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner who stated that even if power has been delegated by the President of India in favour of the Asst. Director General (TR) to appoint the Arbitrator, the same is not in consonance with the provisions contained under Section 7B of the Act, rather, the executive function of President of India has been delegated in favour of the Asst. Director General (TR), which is not the requirement of law under Section 7B of the Act. It is further urged that the provision contained under Section 7B of the Act is very clear, thereby if the statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same has to be adhered to in the same manner or not at all. The origin of the Rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Tailor, (1875) LR I Ch D 426, which was subsequently followed by Lord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al adjudications involve larger questions of policy and public interest. Government and its instrumentalities cannot simply allow large financial interests of the State to be prejudicially affected by non-reviewable -- except in the limited way allowed by the statute -- non-speaking arbitral awards. Indeed, this branch of the system of dispute resolution has, of late, acquired a certain degree of notoriety by the manner in which in many cases the financial interests of Government have come to suffer by awards which have raised eyebrows by doubts as to their rectitude and propriety. It will not be justifiable for Governments or their instrumentalities to enter into arbitration agreements which do not expressly stipulate the rendering of reasoned and speaking awards. Governments and their instrumentalities should, as a matter of policy and public interest -- if not as a compulsion of law -- ensure that wherever they enter into agreements for resolution of disputes by resort to private arbitrations, the requirement of speaking awards is expressly stipulated and ensured. It is for Governments and their instrumentalities to ensure in future this requirement as a matter of policy in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
