8/9/2019 Telecom Service Providers & That to BSNL MTNL

1/13Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1563 OF 2007

CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION

OF INDIA & ORS. APPELLANTS

VERSUS

TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY

OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the

order dated 22 nd December, 2006 passed by the Telecom Disputes

Settlement & Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi hereinafter referred to

as the !Tribunal"# in Appeal No$2 of 2006 with %$A$ No$ ' of 2006#$

(y the impugned order, the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal

disposed of the %$A$No$ ' of 2006 with certain obser)ations$

2. The factual matri* of the case is as follows+

Appellant Nos$2 to 0 are pri)ate -S% cellular operators and

the first appellant is their Association$ They ha)e been issued

licences by the .entral -o)ernment, Department of Telecommunication

hereinafter referred to as !DoT"# under Section / of ndian

Telegraph Act, '' to establish, maintain and operate cellular

mobile telephone ser)ices1unified access ser)ices in their

respecti)e ser)ice areas$ The first respondent is egulatory

1

8/9/2019 Telecom Service Providers & That to BSNL MTNL

2/13Page 2

Authority established under Section 3 of the Telecom egulatory

Authority of ndia Act, 445 hereinafter referred to as !T A

Act"#$

3. The first respondent Authority issued a directi)e dated 25 th

7ebruary, 2006 wherein appellants pri)ate mobile ser)ice pro)iders

in the four States of %aharashtra, 8est (engal, Tamil Nadu and 9ttar

:radesh were directed to discontinue differential tariffs le)ied in

the aforesaid four States for calls terminating in the networ; of

(harat Sanchar Nigam ;eep the entire amount in a separate (an; Account and

intimate the Authority the names of the (an;s in which such amount

has been ;ept$ After receipt of such notice dated 22 nd %arch, 2005

the appellants preferred an appeal under Section / read with

Section /A of the T A Act challenging the direction dated 25 th

7ebruary, 2006$ The challenge was made on the ground that the

direction was discriminatory and inconsistent with the amended

licence conditions notified by the DoT on 20 th %ay, 200 $ The main

plea raised by the appellants ?ustifying the differential half of

calls from pri)ate operator to another pri)ate operator )is @ )is

2

8/9/2019 Telecom Service Providers & That to BSNL MTNL

3/13Page 3

calls from pri)ate operator to (SN< networ; was that direct

connecti)ity could be achie)ed between networ;s of pri)ate operators

but it could not be achie)ed between pri)ate operators and (SN