BHARTI TELENET LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 54 · Decided: 31-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BHARTI TELENET LTD. 
v. :-
~· 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 31, 200S 
[ASHOK BHAN AND A.K. MA THUR, JJ.] 
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997-Section 14A(2) & 
(3)--Licence for providing basic telephone services -
Order passed by Telecom 
C Regulatory Authority of India(TRAI) in respect of dispute between appellant-
/icensee and BSNL-Appellant requested its Association(ABTO) for collective 
action against the order-ABTO filed petition seeking review of the order-
Petition dismissed by TRAl-Appellant filed appeal before Tribunal -
Delay 
of I 72 days in filing the appeal-Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by 
limitation-On facts, held: Mere acquiescence of appellant at one stage to file 
D review petition instead of the appeal did not amount to abandonment of its 
right to file the statutory appeal -
Whether or not ABTO.joined the appeal 
is irrelevant-The Tribunal should have condoned the delay and decided the 
appeal on merits. 
The appellant is a licensee providing basic telephone services to 
E subscribers in the Madhya Pradesh Telecom Circle. It was required to 
develop its own telecommunication network within its own service area, 
viz. Madhya Pradesh and also to inter-connect with the network of Bharat 
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL). Dispute arose between the appellant and 
BSNL regarding location of points of interconnection. Appellant 
F approached Telecom Regulatory Authc_>rity of India (TRAI) for 
appropriate orders and directions. TRAI passed order on 15-6-2001 and 
communicated the same to the appellant on that very day. Since the order 
stated that it would have "general applicability in similar interconnect 
scenarios", the appellant instead of challenging the order individually, 
requested its Association, i.e. Association of Basic Telecom Operators 
G (ABTO) to seek review of the order in coHective interest. The Association 
filed review application. before TRAI, but the 'Same ~as dismissed. The 
order passed in review was discussed amongst the members of ABTO but 
no consensus was forthcoming. By way of abundant caution and since the 
appellant was the most affected by the order of TRAI, it filed appeal before 
H 
54 
BHARTI TELENET LTD. v. U.0.1. 
55 
the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal within 30 days A 
from the communication of the order dismissing the review application 
but after delay of 172 days from the passing of the order dated 15-6-2001. 
Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation holding that the 
application for condonation of delay submitted with the appeal was 
speculative and not bona fide and that the appellant had failed to make B 
out a case for condoning the delay of 172 days in filing the appeal. 
The appellant in the connected appeal is a licensee in the Haryana 
Telecom Circle. Its representation was put on hold by TRAI awaiting the 
decision of the Tribunal in the Madhya Pradesh case. Thereafter, on 29-
8-2002, TRAI rejected the representation upon dismissal of the Madhya C 
Pradesh case by the Tribunal. Appeal filed before the Tribunal was 
dismissed on the ground that there was an enormous delay of more than 
450 days in preferring the appeal from the earlier order of the TRAI dated 
15-6-2001. 
Hence the two appeals filed under Section 18 of the Telecom D 
Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. Before passing of the order dated 15.6.2001 the issue of 
BSNL's refusal to accept intermediate handover of transit calls of long E 
distance charging area in Madhya Pradesh Circle was specific and 
confined to. the appellant and therefore it directly approached TRAI for 
appropriate direction to BSNL. Since the order dated 15.6.2001 expressly 
stated that the order would have general applicability in similar 
interconnect scenarios, the appellant being a member of the Association . F 
not only had an option but was also bound by the spirit of .unity to 
approach the Association and consult other members. In any event being 
a member of the Association, it had the option to either challenge the order 
individually or through the aegis of its Association and neither course of 
action could be said to be inexplicable. (63-B-CJ 
2.1. Mere acquiescence of the appellant at one stage to file the review 
petition instead of the appeal would not amount to abandonment of its 
right to file the statutory appeal or to an estoppel disentitling it from 
claiming the relief in appeal. (6~-E) 
G 
H 
56 
S

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.