CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 17-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 17, 2002 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, CJ., H.K. SEMA AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
c 
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, I997: 
Sections I 4 and I 8: 
Central Government on consideration of recommendations ofTRAI and 
experts body permitting use of Wireless looping System with limited mobility 
to service provides-Challenged by appellants-Negatived by Tribunal-On 
appeal, Held, introduction of Wll with limited mobility is in consumer interest 
D which would also increase the tele-density in the country and as such cannot 
be inte1fered with by this Court within the limited power under Section I 8 of 
the Act-However, non-consideration of relevant materials on the issue of 
level playing field and absence of any finding vitiate the ultimate decision of 
the Tribunal-Matter remanded back to Tribunal for reconsideration on the 
question of level playing field-Directions issued. 
E 
Jurisdiction and power of Appellate Tribunal vis-a-vis Supreme Courl-
Held, Power of Appellate Tribunal is quite wide and Supreme Court in exercise 
of its original or appellate power could not limit the jurisdiction of Tribunal 
as provided under the statute-It must give due consideration lo the 
recommendations of TRAI ai1d an expert body-Power of Supreme Court is 
F circuinscribed by provisions under Section JOO CPC to substantial question of 
law arising from judgment of the Tribunal-Though Tribunal has much wider 
jurisdiction than Supreme Court such jurisdiction cannot be held lo be 
supervisory jurisdiction-Civil Procedure Code, J908; Section JOO. 
G 
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, on receipt of the requisition 
from the Government, prepared consultation paper and obtained 
suggestions from stake holders including appellant, on the question of 
permitting WLL with limited mobility and submitted its recommendations 
to the Government-Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on 
reconsideration of the matter on the issues of use of hand-held status in 
H 
222 
CELLULAR OPERA TORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. U.0.1. 
·223 
wireless in Local Loop System, limited mobility by use of WLL system, A 
level playing field and convergence of fixed and mobile services. TRAI 
submitted re-considered recommendations for wireless in Local Loop 
which were considered by the Prime Minister and after taking into 
consideration the grievances made by the appellant, a Committee of 
Experts (GOT-IT) was constituted for an expert opinion on these isspes. B 
Its final report was accepted by the Prime Minister. Cellular Operators 
Association of India and others challenged the decision of the Government 
permitting the Fixed Services Providers-respondents to offer WLL with 
limited mobility and also assailed the recommendations of TRAI before 
the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, which was 
rejected by the Tribunal. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended for the i;ppellants that the Tribunal did not make 
c 
any reference to highly debatable issues on important questions of law 
which required to be interfered with; that in arriving at such decision, 
accepting recommendations of TRAI, it was obligatory for the 
Government to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act and such D 
non-compliance vitiates the ultimate decision; that the Tribunal failed to 
answer the question whether WLL with limited mobility is a substitution 
of cellular operation; that the Tribunal did not answer the question about 
the permissibility of WLL with limited mobility under NTP-1999; that 
there was neither appreciation of the material nor any finding has been E 
given by the Tribunal on the issue of level playing field and as such the 
judgment of the Tribunal was liable to be interfered with; that the 
Tribunal assumed several things without any basis in its judgment; that 
the Tribunal disposed of the matter on the ground of consumer interest 
and not by focusing its attention to several infirmities with the decision of 
the Government; that decision of the Government permitting the FSPs to F 
have WLL with limited mobility was an arbitrary action and Tribunal 
committed error in not examining that aspect; that in regard to National 
Telecom Policy-1999 any changes in the licence agreement tantamount to 
viola.tion of recommendations; that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is wide 
enough and not circumscribed by the jurisdiction of a Court under Article G 
226; that 

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