Back
JAYANT NATH, G.ROHINI
CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA – Respondent
Ms. G.ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE
1. The petitioners are Telecom operators/Associations of telecom operators who offer telecommunication services.
2. This petition is filed challenging the validity of the Telecom Consumer Protection (Ninth Amendment) Regulations, 2015 notified on 16.10.2015 by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (for short TRAI‘) in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 36 read with Section 11(1)(b)(v)(i) of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.
3. By the said Amendment dated 16.10.2015 which has come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2016, every originating service provider providing cellular mobile telephone service is made liable to credit the calling consumer i.e. a consumer who initiates a voice call, by one rupee for each call drop within its network for a maximum of three call drops per day. Further the service provider shall also provide the details of the amount credited to the calling consumer within 4 hours of the occurrence of call drop through SMS/USSD message. In case of post paid consumers such details of amount credited in the account of calling consumer shall be provided in the next bill.
4. Before adverting to the various grounds
None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The descriptions provided do not contain language such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "distinguished" that would suggest a negative treatment or invalidation of these precedents. Therefore, based on the available information, no case can be definitively categorized as bad law.
[Followed or affirmed]
Case State Of T. N. VS P. Krishnamurthy - 2006 5 Supreme 581: The case discusses the validity of Rule 38A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, and reads down the rule in regard to existing leases. The language suggests that the case affirms the validity of the rule and clarifies its application, indicating it is considered good law and authoritative in its context.
[Clarified or interpreted]
Case PTC India VS Central Electricity Regulatory Commission - 2010 2 Supreme 384: This case explains the hierarchy between Regulations and Orders, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction regarding the validity of regulations. The language indicates an interpretative stance rather than a challenge or negative treatment, suggesting the case is treated as a valid interpretation of legal principles.
Case Abhinav Kumar, Dr. VS Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare And Another - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 885: The case involves the Cellular Operators Association of India and TRAI, with no indication of negative treatment. It appears to be a substantive case affirming the regulatory authority's position, thus likely treated as good law.
[Legal scope clarification]
Case Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited VS Telecom Regulatory Authority of India - 2013 8 Supreme 581: The case discusses the scope of TRAI's regulatory powers under sections 11, 12, 13, and 36(1). The language indicates an authoritative clarification of the legal scope, treated as valid and relevant in defining the extent of TRAI's powers.
All cases listed lack explicit language or context indicating their subsequent judicial treatment. For example, there is no mention of these cases being overruled, criticized, or distinguished in later rulings. Without additional case law history or judicial commentary, their treatment remains uncertain. The analysis is based solely on the provided descriptions, which do not contain treatment indicators.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
