JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):

BRIEF FACTS:

1. The Petitioner- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,1 a Telecom Service Provider, is a public sector company under the ownership of Government of India. BSNL entered into two agreements (1) Empanelment Agreement and (2) Commercial Agreement with Respondent No.1 - Plintron India Private Limited,2 which has a Unified Licence for a Virtual Network Operator.3 The

1 “BSNL”

2 “Plintron”

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 12240/2024 Page 1 of 13 Empanelment Agreement executed on 23rd October, 20174 was valid for a period of five years and has come to an end by flux of time on 23rd October, 2022. The Commercial Agreement signed on 13th July, 20185 was based on Empanelment Agreement and was valid for two years which could further be extended for two years till the validity of Empanelment Agreement.

2. After the expiry of Empanelment Agreement, BSNL issued a notice dated 26th October, 2022 rejecting the Petitioner’s request for extension of Empanelment Agreement and informing them that the Empanelment Agreement expired on 23rd October, 2022. This was followed by another communication dated 28th October, 2022 informing Respondent No.1 that the existing connectivity shall continue only for an extended period of one month till 30th November, 2022. Thus, one month’s time was granted to Respondent No.1 for closing their services. In this background, Respondent No.1 invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in W.P.(C) 16448/2022 and sought the following reliefs:

3 “VNO”

4 “Empanelment Agreement”

5 “Commercial Agreement”

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 12240/2024 Page 2 of 13

3. In the above background, this Court after hearing the counsel for the parties, on 1st December, 2022, passed the following order:

“10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 and respondent No. 2 were aware of the fact there is lack of proliferation of VNOs in mobile segment and VNOs have been facing difficulties in getting access facilities Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 12240/2024 Page 3 of 13 from the NSO.

11. Hence, the petitioner along with other VNOs have been constantly requesting the respondent no. 1 to make it mandatory for the NSOs to provide access to them and allow multi parenting for promoting VNOs on mobile segment. There was certain progress made in this regard.

12. Respondent no. 3 (TRAI) issued a recommendation dated

19.08.2021 for enabling unbundling of different layers through differential licensing under the term of the Section 11 (1) (A) of the TRAI Act, 1997. The respondent no. 3 in the said recommendation recommended for the broad framework in order to ensure transparency and accountability in the entire process for VNOs seeking and entering into an agreement with the Access Network Provider or the Unified License.

13. It is stated that by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 /TRAI that subsequent recommendations dated 06.09.2022 has only reiterated the earlier recommendation.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Mr. Bhatia appearing on advance notice vehemently oppose the present petition. According to Mr. Bhatia, the present writ petition is not maintainable as the effective remedy against the impugned orders would lie before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).

15. Learned counsel further submits that the Empanelment Agreement between the parties has already expired on 23.10.2022 and there cannot be any automatic extension of the contract between the parties. No mandamus can be issued to the parties for extension of the agreement. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 further submits that vide letter dated 28.10.2022 sufficient time has been granted to the petitioner for closing their services. In rejoinder learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury if the respondent No. 2 is allowed to disconnect existing connectivity.

16. The petition