TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI. Dated 6 th January, 2017

Transcription

1 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Dated 6 th January, 2017 Telecommunication Appeal No. 1 of 2016 With M.A. No. 505 of 2016 In M.A. No. 5 of 2017 Bharti Airtel Ltd. Appellant Vs. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Respondent BEFORE: HON BLE MR. B.B. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER HON BLE MR. A.K. BHARGAVA, MEMBER For Appellant : Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate Mr. Harsh Kaushik, Advocate Ms. Kriti Awasthi, Advocate Mr. Abhay Chattopadhyay, Advocate For Respondent No.1(TRAI) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Advocate Mr. Prateek Phanda, Advocate Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate For Reliance Jio (for impleadment) : Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Shashiprabhu, Advocate Mr. Rittin Rai, Advocate

2 Mr. Biju P. Raman, Advocate Mr. Jayant Malik, Advocate Mr. Aabhas Kshetrapal, Advocate Mr. Vivek Paul, Advocate Mr. Tushar Bharadwaj, Advocate Mr. Hiten Sampat, Advocate ORDER At the outset, Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Reliance Jio, applicant in M.A. No. 5 of 2017, submitted that they are necessary and proper party in the matter; and they need to be impleaded as any decision is likely to affect them. He also pointed out to page 213 of the paperbook of MA No.505/2016 filed by the Appellant under section 14A of the TRAI Act seeking condonation of delay in filing of the accompanying appeal; and submitted that this appeal is not maintainable. Mr.Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel for the appellant draws our attention to the order dated and submits that the respondent TRAI has not abided by the direction with respect to apprising the Tribunal on affidavit about the decision of the TRAI on the prayers in appeal. He also took us through various documents in the paperbook and reiterated the stand that the communication of TRAI dated is still continuing in some form or the other post He also strongly opposed impleadment of Reliance Jio. He is directed to file reply to MA No.5 of 2017 within two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed within a week thereafter. However, both activities must be completed by the next date. Heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned ASG at length. He essentially submitted that a large number of similar applications are being filed with TRAI warranting action by the Regulator and the 10 days time assured on the last occasion for taking the call as well as the final decision in

3 the matter is not sufficient enough. He also submits that some more time is required by the Regulator to take a final call on this matter and apprise the Tribunal about the decision without prejudice to the contention of the Regulator as well that this proceeding is not maintainable before the Tribunal. At this stage, it would be pertinent to record essentially the Prayer made in the Appeal which reads as under: (a) Quash the Respondent s Decision dated annexed as Annexure A1 to the present Appeal; (b) Direct the Respondent to re-examine/reconsider the issue of non-compliance of TRAI s Directions dated and , as well as Telecommunication Tariff Orders 2003 dated and 2004 dated , as well as TRAI s Letter dated and other relevant letters and TRAI s Tariff Orders, Directions and Regulations, raised by the Appellant and other Telecom Service Providers in their joint representation dated ; And also the interim prayer which reads as under: (a) Direct the Respondent to ensure immediate compliance of its own Directions dated and by all Telecom Service Providers; (b) Direct the Respondent to ensure that no Telecom Service Provider provides any promotional offer beyond the prescribed period of 90 days i.e (in this case). A perusal of the main prayer as well as interim prayer makes it clear that in the first instance, it is the Regulator who has to take a call on the Regulations framed by it and ensure how far they have been complied with or are being complied by the service providers. We fully

4 agree with learned ASG that the Tribunal or the Regulator has to simply balance the equity and the interest of the service providers but at the same time, the prime importance is the consumers interest. Having said that we would like to reiterate that the time is also of essence and in view of submissions made by learned ASG, we expect that a clear decision would be taken within a reasonable time. Respondent TRAI is directed to file its reply to the MA No.505/2016 within two weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter. Put up under the same head on (B.B. Srivastava) Member... (A. K. Bhargava) Member sks

5