The main legal point established in the judgment is that the orders of the Tribunal were not interlocutory, making them appealable to the Supreme Court.

A.K. SIKRI, ACJ

1. In these three writ petitions, the challenge is to the common orders dated 24.12.2011, 20.1.2012 and 17.2.2012 of the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in the proceedings, filed by respondent in each of these writ petitions, before the Tribunal. While orders dated 24.12.2011 and 17.2.2012 concern interim relief/stay granted by the Tribunal, vide order dated 20.1.2012, the Tribunal has decided the question pertaining to its jurisdiction to deal with the petitions filed by the respondents before the Tribunal and held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the matters.

2. For the purpose of present order, it may not be necessary to state in detail the controversy/dispute which is raised in those petitions before the Tribunal. It would serve our purpose to point out that the proceedings before the Tribunal have been filed impugning the order dated 23.12.2011 of the petitioner calling upon these respondents to stop immediately the provision of 3G services in service areas where the said respondents were providing these services under the intra service area roaming agreements. The respondents felt aggrieved with the aforesaid orders as according to them, it was permissible for them to enter into such agreements and provide these services thereunder. Challenging this order, the respondents filed their respective petitions before the Tribunal in which impugned common orders have been passed.

3. Along with the petitions before the Tribunal, the respondents had also filed applications seeking interim stay of the aforesaid order dated 23.12.2011. It appears that the said petitions were mentioned for immediate hearing and having regard to the urgency, were taken up for hearing on 24.12.2011. On 24.12.2011, as per the impugned order passed on that date, the matter was heard at great length. The Tribunal, while adjourning the matter to 3.1.2012, directed that till the next date, the petitioner herein is restrained from taking any coercive steps against the respondents herein to enforce the impugned order dated 23.12.2011. Some other portions of this order dated 24.12.2011 which are relevant would be referred to and adverted at later stage.

4. Matter was taken up on 3.1.2012 when the petitioner herein raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of those petitions filed by the respondents herein primarily on the ground that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute raised by the respondents. It appears that on this aspect, the matter was heard on few dates and ultimately the order dated 20.1.2012 has been passed holding that the Tribunal has the requisite jurisdiction to deal with the dispute on merits.

5. Thereafter, issue relating to interim relief was again taken up for hearing. The issue relating to interim relief was heard on 16.2.2012. Since the hearing could not be completed, it was further resumed and took place on 17.2.2012. On 17.2.2012, the Tribunal observed that since the issue of interim relief which was argued at length was primarily of the same nature on which hearing on main matter could take place and the main petition itself could be disposed of, a suggestion was mooted to hear the main matter itself finally treating the hearing of the interim matter to be hearing on the main matter. This suggestion was agreed to and accepted by learned counsels for all the parties. The petitioner herein had already filed short reply to the interim applications. The Tribunal observed that as the questions which had arisen for consideration in the petitions were questions of law, the petitioner herein could file additional documents and no further pleadings needed to be filed, though it permitted the parties to raise all contentions making it clear that they would remain open. Having regard to the aforesaid course of action adopted by the Tribunal in proceeding with the final hearing of the matter and even treatin