IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.06.2018

CORAM

The HON'BLE MS.INDIRA BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

W.P.Nos.5915 and 5916 of 2018

Vodafone Mobile Services Limited

Having its registered office at

Peninsula Corporate Park,

Ganapatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,

Mumbai – 400 013

rep. by its Manager Legal P.V.K.Duraimurugan

Having its Tamil Nadu Circle office at

Tower 1, 9^th floor, TVH Beliciaa Towers,

Block 94, MRC Nagar,

Chennai – 600 028.

.. Petitioner in

both WPs

vs.

1.Union of India,

rep. by its Secretary,

Department of Telecommunications,

Sanchar Bhawan 20, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi – 110 001.

2.Telecom Regulatory Authority of India,

Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhavan,

Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,

New Delhi – 110 002.

3.Vodafone India Limited,

Having its registered office at

Peninsula Corporate Park,

Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,

Mumbai – 400 013.

.. Respondents in

both WPs

PRAYER : Writ Petition No.5915 of 2018 filed under Article

226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of

declaration to declare that the impugned notification dated

16.2.2018 bearing No.312/-1/2017F&EA is unconstitutional,

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious and therefore

null and void ab-initio being in violation of, inter alia,

Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and also without

the authority of law, being in violation of the provisions of

the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.

PRAYER : Writ Petition No.5916 of 2018 filed under Article 226

of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of

certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent

comprised in impugned communication dated 7.3.2018 bearing

No.301-7(27)/2017-F&EA and quash the same as being illegal,

arbitrary, capricious and without the authority of law.

For Petitioner

in W.P.No.5915/2018

: Mr.P.S.Raman

Senior Counsel

for M/s.R.Parthasarathy

For Petitioner

in W.P.No.5916/2018

Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan

Senior Counsel

for M/s.R.Parthasarathy

For Respondents

: Mr.N.Ramesh

SPC for respondent No.1

in both WPs

Mr.P.Wilson

Senior Counsel

for Richardson Wilson

for 2^nd respondent

in W.P.No.5915/2018

Mr.N.L.Rajah

Senior Counsel

for Dr.M.Devendran

for 2^nd respondent

in W.P.No.5916/2018

Mr.K.Venkatramani

Senior Counsel

for M/s.Gupta and Ravi

for impleading petitioner

in WMP.Nos.10516 & 10517 of

2018

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

COMMON ORDER

(Order was made by Ms.Indira Banerjee, Chief Justice)

In W.P.No.5915 of 2018, hereinafter referred to as the first

writ petition, the writ petitioner has challenged a Notification

dated 16.2.2018 passed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of

India (hereinafter referred to as “TRAI”) in exercise of powers

conferred under 11(2) read with Section 11(1)(b)(i) of the

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, hereinafter

referred to as “the TRAI Act”, making the Telecommunication

Tariff (Sixty third Amendment) Order 2018, amending the

Telecommunication Tariff Order, 1999.

2. In W.P.No.5916 of 2018, hereinafter referred to as the

second writ petition, the writ petitioner has challenged a

communication No.301-7(27)/2017-F&EA, dated 07.3.2018, the

relevant portion whereof is extracted hereinbelow:

“3. After the consultation process, TRAI has

notified TTO (63^rd Amendment) on 16.02.2018 defining

the Regulatory principles of trariff assessment.

In this context, your particular attention is

invited to Para 7.4.2 (e) (iv) & (v) of the

explanatory memorandum to the 63^rd Amendment of TTO.

The offer of a discount is effectively the offer of

a new tariff. The Authority is of the opinion that

segmented offers which have to be necessarily

transparent and non-arbitrary, either for retention

or acquisition of new consumers, are to be

transpare