( 1 ) THIS judgment will apply to four different writ petitions. The challenge, however,in all these petitions is to the non-inclusion of the petitioners in the final list of eight partiesfor grant of licence to operate the Cellular Mobile Telephone Services in four cities,namely, Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta and Madras. These are C. W. P. No. 4030/92 (Indiatelecomp Limited), C. W. P. No. 4031/92 (Adino Telecom Limited), C. W. P. 4302/92 (Kanazia Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd), and C. W. P. 163/92 (M/s. Hutchison Max Telecompvt. Ltd ). Respondents number 11. First three respondents are the Union of India throughthe Department of Telecommunications (Dot), Director General of Telecommunications,and Chairman, Dot. Other eight respondents are those to whom licences to run thecellular Mobile Telephone Services have been agreed to be given though provisionally. It is better to set out their names as well:-

1. TATA Cellular P. Ltd. (respondent No. 4)2. Bharti Cellular, (respondent No. 5)3. Skycell Communications Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No. 6)4. Sterling Cellular, (respondent No. 7)5. Mobile Telecom Services Ltd. (respondent No. 8)6. Usha Martin Telecom, (respondent No. 9)7. BPL Systems