HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J.

1. While the writ appeals, W.A. Nos. 1454 and 1455 of 2014 have been filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge directing the appellants to comply with the conditions imposed in the order of the respondent; W.P. Nos. 585 to 588 of 2012 have been filed against the imposition of share on Adjusted Gross Revenue (for short 'AGR') even on income earned in relation to non-telecom activities and W.P. Nos. 2165 to 2167 of 2013 have been filed by the petitioners against the levy of One Time Spectrum Charge (for short 'OTSC'). Since all the matters are intertwined with each other, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

PRAYER IN W.P. NOS. 585 TO 588 OF 2012 :

2. While W.P. Nos. 585 & 587 of 2012 have been filed by the petitioner to declare the first proviso to Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 as violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution alleging that it confers unguided power upon the Dept. of Telecommunications to claim a revenue share in respect of non-telecom activities carried on by the petitioners; W.P. Nos. 586 & 588 of 2012 have been filed for a declaration that the respondents can only charge License Fee/AGR from the revenue earned from licensed activities.

PRAYER IN W.P. NOS. 2165 TO 2167 OF 2013 :

3. W.P. Nos. 2165 to 2167 of 2013 have been filed by the petitioners against the demand notice issued by the respondents imposing One Time Spectrum Fee on the petitioners in respect of the licenses issued to them.

PRAYER IN W.A. NOS. 1454 & 1455 OF 2014 :

4. These writ appeals have been filed by the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 9220 and 9221 of 2014, wherein, the order dated 3rd October, 2013 and the consequential communication dated 23rd January, 2014, of the respondents directing the petitioner, Aircel Ltd. to give an undertaking to clear all the dues of Aircel Cellular Ltd., for the purpose of issuance of amendment of the Cellular Mobile Telephone Service, consequent upon the merger of Aircel Cellular Ltd. with Aircel Ltd. was challenged, wherein learned single Judge had directed the petitioners to comply with the conditions imposed in the order of the respondent dated 3.10.2013 without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the writ petitions already pending on the file of this Court, with further directions.

5. An overview of the entire factual matrix, which are intertwined with each other and necessary for the better understanding and disposal of the matter are culled out herein-below:-

(i) In pursuance of notification for grant of license for Cellular Mobile Telephone Service (for short 'CMTS'), Aircel Cellular Limited (for short 'ACL') was granted CMTS License for Chennai Metro Service Area (for short 'Chennai Area'), for a period of 10 years on 30.11.1994. Similarly, for the Rest of Tamil Nadu Circle (for short 'RoTN Area'), CMTS licence was granted to Aircel Limited (for short 'AL') for a period of 10 years from 22.5.1998 and the effective date for the licence was changed from 24.4.98 to 31.12.98.

(ii) With the introduction of National Telecom Policy, 1999 (for short 'NTP, 1999'), migration package for all the existing licensees of cellular and basic telecom services were proposed. By the said proposal, payment of one time entry fee and license fee as a percentage of gross revenue under the licence was imposed and that the period of license was to be 20 years from the effective date of the existing license agreement. Through various amendments to the licenses, annual license fee, AGR and spectrum charges on revenue share basis were ordered, including amendment relating to transfer/assignment of license. On 15.9.05, circular was issued by the Government for merger of Chennai Area and RoTN Area into Tamil Nadu Service Area (for short 'TN Area'), wherein option was given to the licensees to apply for merger of both the licenses. Further, group companies having separate licenses were permitted to transfer their existing license to