The tribunal established that unilateral rate changes for infrastructure are impermissible without negotiation, affirming that newly revised charges cannot apply retrospectively.

JUDGMENT

Kuldip Singh: The petitioners herein have been granted licenses under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act , 1885, for providing telecom services such as Universal Access service/Cellular Mobile Telephone Service/National Long Distance Service, etc.

They entered into Interconnection Agreements with the respondent, which is a Public Sector Undertaking, for interconnection of their telecom networks with that of the respondent. The dispute in the present petitions pertains to the charges for infrastructure facilities being provided by the respondent to the petitioners, which were increased vide circular of the respondent dated 12.06.2012. As the questions of law and facts in all these petitions are similar, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Before we go into the facts of the case, let us explain the need for and how the interconnection of the networks takes place.

The need for interconnection arises because no telecom network can work as a stand-alone network for the reason that subscribers of the operator of such a network would also like to communicate with the subscribers of the other operators having different networks. As an example of a typical voice call, let us take the case of a long distance call that originates in one service area and gets terminated in another service area within the country. The network of the originating access provider 1 , where the calls originate, hands over the call to the national long distance operator [NLDO] who carries the same to the distant service area and hands over to the access provider of that area for termination on the called subscriber. Though in some cases all the services may be provided by the same operator, many times the calls originate in the network of one operator and terminate in that of another. It is for this purpose that the networks are required to be interconnected with each other. Even for a local call terminating in the same service area, the originating and the terminating access providers may be different.

Whenever a new operator wishes to start operations, it is necessary for such an operator to interconnect with various other networks of the incumbent operators that are already in existence. The incumbents, however, may not feel the need to interconnect with the new comer. It is for this reason that interconnection, as well as the terms on which the same is to be provided, is regulated by the telecom regulators all over the world. The various operators designate some of their switches/exchanges as points of interconnect [POI] from which the interconnection facility is provided by a physical connection on the ports available in such points of interconnect. Sometimes the new comer, called the interconnection seeker in common parlance, may ask for certain other facilities/resources from the incumbent

1 The access provider can be a Basic Service Operator who provides fixed telephones, a Cellular Mobile

Operator providing wireless mobile phones, or a Universal Access Provider who can provide all types of access.

The type of access is how the subscriber gets connected to the Central Office of the operator [also called exchange/switch/mobile switching centre, etc.].

operators, which may not be mandated by the Regulations, on mutually agreeable terms.

With the above brief background, we may now proceed to examine the facts of the present cases.

3. The facts below are based on Petition No. 577 of 2012 but are similar in other petitions.

As per the Clause 6.3.3 of the Interconnect Agreement between the parties, it is not mandatory for the respondent to provide any infrastructure to the petitioners which they are themselves supposed to arrange. The clause reads as under:-

“6.3.3 Other charges

It shall not be mandatory for BSNL to prov