JVS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1461 OF 2013 Bharti Airtel Limited & Anr. } Petitioners versus Union of India & Ors. } Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2029 OF 2013 Vodafone Idea Limited } Petitioner versus Union of India & Ors. } Respondents Ms. Fereshte Sethna with Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Ms. Suman Yadav,Ms. Nikhita Suri, Mr. Mohit Tiwari, Mr. Prakalathan Bathey, Mr. Raghav Dutt, Mr. Gurdas Khurana, Ms.Pryianka MP, Mr. Arkaprava Das Ms. Dolly Mirchandani, Ms. Sushmita Singh Chaudhari, Ms. Tarang Sarangi and Ms. Payal Nayak i/b. DMD Advocates, Advocates for the Petitioners in WP/1461/2013.

Ms. Jaidhara Shah with Mr. Manan Parekh i/b. M/s.Bharucha & Partners, Advocates for the Petitioner in WP/2029/2013.

Mr. Gauraj Shah for Respondents in both petitions.

CORAM: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. &

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

DATE: 14^th NOVEMBER 2025 P.C.:

Writ Petition No. 1461 of 2013 (Bharti Airtel Limited & Anr. v.

Union of India & Ors.) were listed together on several occasions. On

18^th September 2024, Writ Petition No. 1772 of 2013 was disposed of by the following order: -

“1. In the present Writ Petition, the order dated 28^th December 2012 passed by the Ministry of Communications & IT Department of Telecommunications is under challenge. Ordinarily, the challenge to the aforesaid order would lie before the Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). In paragraph 86 of the Writ Petition, it has been averred that the Judicial Member and Chairperson at that point of time was unavailable and hence, the petitioners had approached this Court.

2. While entertaining the Writ Petition, the order dated 8^th April

2013 was passed granting interim protection.

3. Our attention is invited to an order passed by the Calcutta High Court in Writ Petition No.10617 of 2013 (Tata Teleservices Limited & anr. Versus Union of India & Ors.) wherein a similar challenge had been raised. Liberty therein was granted to the petitioners to approach the TDSAT in view of availability of the Tribunal. A similar liberty is sought by the petitioners herein.

4. Since the alternate remedy of approaching the TDSAT is available, the petitioners are permitted to raise a challenge to the orders dated 28^th December 2012, 15^th March 2013 as well as the demand dated 20^th March 2013 accordingly before the TDSAT.

5. In the light of the fact that the Writ Petition was filed on 4^th April 2013, the period from that date till today shall be taken into consideration as time spent in prosecuting the legal remedy.

6. The interim protection granted on 8^th April 2013 shall continue to operate for a period of four weeks from today.

7. Keeping all points raised on merits open, the Writ Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No costs.”

2. Mr. Gauraj Shah, the learned assisting counsel to the learned Additional Solicitor General appears through video conferencing and joins the proceedings.

3. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in these two writ petitions shall inform the Court whether there was any challenge laid to the order dated 18^th September 2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 1772 of 2013 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court or approached the Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

4. These writ petitions are under the category of Supreme Court Expedited Matters and we are informed that at one point in time the arguments on behalf of the petitioners in both these writ petitions were concluded.

5. The learned counsel in Writ Petition No. 1461 of 2013 seeks adjournment on the ground that she is led by Mr. Harish Salve, the learned senior counsel who shall be available on 8^th December 2025. On her request, post these matters on 8^th December 2025 at

3:00 p.m.

JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Digitaly signed by JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Date: 2025.11.17