Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(TDSAT) 8
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Aftab Alam, CJ, Kuldip Singh, J
Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Petition No. 392 of 2013 | Petition No. 434 of 2013 | Petition No. 458 of 2013 | Petition No. 23 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Maninder Singh, Mr. Manjul Bajpai, Mr. Tarun Gulati, Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Mr. Shashwat Bajpai, Mr. Tejveer Singh Bhatia, Ms. Disha Sachdeva, Ms. Payal Chandra, Mr. Varun Kumar Tikmani, Mr. Navin Chawla, Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Mr. Soli Sorabjee, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Mr. Gopal Jain, Mr. Kamal Shankar, Ms. Stephanie V. Sonawane, Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Mr. Atul Menon, Ms. Shally Bhasin, Mr. Chaitanya Safaya
For the Respondent: Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, Mr. K. P. S. Kohli, Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Ms. Neha Singh, Ms. Maneesha Dhir
The extension of telecom licenses is contingent upon public policy considerations, and the Government may deny extensions based on the need for auctioning spectrum in the public interest.
Headnote:(A) Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Section 4 - Licenses for mobile services - Application for extension of licenses - Petitioners are mobile service providers with licenses expiring in November 2014 - They sought extension for another 10 years but were denied - The Government's rejection was justified by changes in policy aimed at public interest and fair spectrum auctioning (Paras 1-59).
(B) Telecom Policy - Public Interest - The grant of extension of licenses is not an absolute right and can be denied based on policy changes that serve public interest, allowing for auction-based allocation of spectrum (Paras 16, 19, 51).
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, whose licenses were due to expire, attempted to secure extensions to prevent loss of spectrum and continued service to millions of subscribers, but were rejected by the Government citing policy changes (Paras 1-5, 54-57).
Findings of Court:
The denial of extensions was upheld based on principles of public interest and compliance with auction regulations (Paras 51-58).
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to extensions of their licenses; whether the Government's refusal was justified based on new policies (Paras 1-5).
Ratio Decidendi: The right to extension is qualified, contingent on policy considerations and public good; the Government's insistence on auctioning spectrum is seen as a valid public interest policy change (Paras 16, 19, 51).
Result: Petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background of license extension (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenge to denial of license extension (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. analysis of spectrum band allocations (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. extension based on public interest factors (Para 12 , 19 , 22) |
| 5. understanding 'expedient' in extending licenses (Para 13 , 14 , 18) |
| 6. government's policy overrides private expectations (Para 42 , 52) |
| 7. continuity of service concerns addressed (Para 54 , 55) |
| 8. finality in the tribunal's decision dismissing the petitions (Para 56 , 57 , 58) |
ORDER
Aftab Alam, Chairperson -
The petitioners in the three connected cases are mobile telephone service providers under the Licenses,
“25. Accordingly, I deem it fit to dispose of the writ petitions with the following directions:
(i) The respondent shall dispose of the pending applications of the petitioners qua their request for extension of their licenses in terms of clause 4.1 of the license.
(ii) The respondent shall in this behalf give due opportunity to the representatives of the petitioners to present their case of Loop. by Loop case before the concerned officer. For this purpose, notice in writing would be issued to each of the petitioners informing them of the date, time and venue at which they could present themselves through their representatives.
(iii) The order disposing of the applications will contain reasons.
(iv) The exercise in this behalf will be completed on or before 07.03.2012. The decision taken will be communicated to the petitioners forthwith by post and email.
(v) In case the decision taken on the petitioners’ applications is adverse to their interest, they will have the liberty to take recourse to an appropriate remedy, which may be available to them, in accordance with law.”
2. Following the High Court direction, the petitioners were given the hearing on 04.03.2013, after which they also made an additional representation. But finally their applications for extension of their licences were rejected by orders dated 21.03.2013 [in case of M/s Vodafone India Ltd. and M/s Loop Mobile (India) Ltd.] and dated 22.03.2013 (in case of M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd.) passed by Director (AS-I), Department of Telecommunications, Government of India.
3. As a consequence of denial of extension of licences, all the spectrums held by the three petitioners are put in the pool of spectrums that is going to be put on auction on the coming Monday (03.02.2014). As a result, on the expiry of their licences in November 2014 the assignments and holdings of those spectrums would depend upon the result of the auction.
4. Faced with the prospect of losing the spectrums assigned to them under their respective licences, the petitioners have come to the Tribunal challenging the orders of DoT and seeking a direction to the Central Government to grant extension of their licences for a further period of 10 years on mutually agreed terms and conditions.
5. Here it may also be stated that even while pressing their claim for extension of their licences, Vodafone and Bharti are also taking part in the coming auction
