IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Bharati Hexacom Limited - Petitioner
Vs.
The Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications & Ors. - Respondents
W.P(C) No. 31 of 2013
Decided On : 16-05-2017
The petitioner is a cellular mobile operator providing GSM, mobile telephony, broadband services in several States pursuant to the license granted by the Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933. The petitioner, being the Telecom Service Provider (TSP), has made huge investment for creating facilities to provide the best services in the relevant areas/regions allotted to it. The Union of India under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 has exclusive privilege in respect of telegraphs and power to grant licenses. In exercise of those powers, license was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner and the respondents entered into an agreement for Cellular Mobile Telephone Service in the North-East circle. The respondents granted various telecom licenses to the petitioner from time to time under Section 4 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as amended. The Union of India, hereinafter referred to as the “Government of India”, even though, has exclusive privilege over the telegraph activities prior to 1984, but could not expand the telecom services as expected. Resultantly, by formulating National Telecom Policy, 1984, they decided to invite private sector participation. Pursuant to that policy, the private telecom operators, including the petitioner, were granted licenses. Under the said licenses, the licensees paid license fee on a fixed rate basis. The object of the New Telecom Policy was, to have telecommunication for all and within the reach of all. According to the petitioner, the said policy has the object of ensuring the availability of telephone on demand as early as possible. It was also intended by the policy to achieve universal service covering all villages as early as possible and to provide access to all people for certain basic telecom services at affordable reasonable prices and to provide the world standard telecom services.
2. The petitioner, since has relied heavily on the object and target of the New Telecom Policy, 1999, the relevant part is quoted hereunder from the said New Telecom Policy :
“Access to telecommunications is of utmost importance for achievement of the country's social and economic goals. Availability of affordable and effective communications for the citizens is at the core of the vision and goal of the telecom policy; Strive to provide a balance between the provision of universal service to all uncovered areas, including the rural areas, and the provision of high-level services capable of meeting the needs of the country's economy; Encourage development of telecommunication facilities in remote, hilly and tribal areas of the country; Create a modern and efficient telecommunications infrastructure taking into account the convergence of IT, media, telecom and consumer electronics and thereby propel India into becoming an IT superpower; Convert PCO's, wherever justified, into Public Teleinfo centres having multimedia capability like ISDN services, remote database access, government and community information systems etc. Transform in a time bound manner, the telecommunications sector to a greater competitive environment in both urban and rural areas providing equal opportunities and level playing field for all players; Strengthen research and development efforts in the country and provide an impetus to build world-class manufacturing capabilities. Achieve efficiency and transparency in spectrum management. Protect defence and security interests of the country. Enable Indian Telecom Companies to become truly global players. In line with the above objectives, the specific targets that the NTP 1999 seeks to achieve would be:
Make available telephone on demand by the year 2002 and sustain it thereafter so as to achieve a teledensity of 7 by the year 2005 and 15 by the year 2010 Encourage development of telecom in rural areas making it more affordable by suita
Assistant Excise Commissioner & Ors. Vs. Issac Peter & Ors.
Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. Vs. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy
Bharati Cellular Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly
Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/s Anabeshahi Wine and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.
Government of A.P. Vs. M/s Anabeshahi Wine & Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.
Har Shankar & Ors. Vs. The Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner & Ors.
Har Shankar & Ors. Vs. The Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner & Ors.
Hindustan Times vs. State of U.P.
Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union vs. State of Kerala
LIC of India vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre
Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Yasin
M/s Radhakrishna Agarwal & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
M/S M.G. Brothers Lorry Service Vs. M/S Prasad Textiles
Mannalal Khetn & Ors. Vs. Kedar Nath Khetan & Ors.
Mehboob Dawood Sheikh vs. State of Maharashtra
New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
Panna Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Ranchhoddas vs. Union of India
State of Bihar vs. Suprabhat Steel Ltd.
State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. KCT Drinks Ltd.
State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Narain Prasad & Ors.
State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Harinarayan Jaiswal & Ors.
State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. & Ors.
State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jage Ram & Ors.
Shyam Teleline Limited Vs. Union of India
The City Corporation of Calicut Vs. Thachambalath Sadasivan & Ors.
Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sai Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Union of India & Anr. Vs. Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India & Ors.
Union of India vs. Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.