LexCELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS. versus TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDLA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) 11S.C.R.1063 CELLULAR OPERATORSASSOCIATION OF INDIA& A ORS. . . v. TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDl.A & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.1563 of 2007) JANUARY 30, 2015 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA 'AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] B c Telecommunications - Cellular mobile telephone services/unified access services-Appellants-private mobile service providers levying differential tariff of calls from private operator to another private operator vis-a-vis calls made from private operator to BSNUMTNL aetwork on ground that direct D connectivity could be achieved between networks of private operators but not between private operators and BSNL network - If justified - Held: Action of appellants amounted to discrimination between the same class of subscribers - E Appellant could have made use of the similar leased lines as they had between their networks and asked for Ps of I from the BSNL for the MSCs which was not done - No effort was made by the appellants to create direct connectivity and they took recourse to the easier way of handing the traffic to the F BSNL as National Long Distance Operator and continued charging the consumers higher tariffs - Access providers have option to continue with the existing inter-connected routing of the class of service areas but that cannot be a ground to discriminate, in any manner, between subscribers G of the same class - Appellants -service pro'(iders discriminated between subscribers of the same class; one on the ground that the call ends with the private parties and another on the ground that the call ends with BSNUMTNL - 1063 H 1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015]11 S.C.R. A Classification of the subscribers into two categories on the basis of calls made by them from private network to another private network and from private network .to BSNUMTNL network is arbitrary as it fails to satisfy the twin test for reasonable classification - Telecom Regulatory Authority of B India Act, 1997 - s.3-·Jndian Telegraph Act, 1885- s.11. c D E State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar & Anr. AIR 1952 SC 75- referred to. Case Law Reference AIR 1952 SC 75 referred to Para 23 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1563 of 2007 From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2006 of the Telecom Disputes· Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. 2 of 2006 Amarendra Sharan, Navin Chawla, Arpit Maheshwari, Aprajita for the Appellants. Pinky Anand, ASG, Maneesha Dhir, K. P. S. Kohli, Prashant Jain, Gagan Gupta, Sanjay Kapur, Lekha F Vishwanath, Mo hit Paul, Amit Bansal, Gaurav Goyal, Madhu Sikri for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This G appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 22nd December, 2006 passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Appeal No.2 of2006 (with M.A. No.58 of 2006). By the impugned order, the Tribunal while H CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSN. OF INDIA v. TELECOM REGULATORY 1065 AUTHORITY OF INDIA [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.] dismissing the appeal disposed of the M,A.No.58 of 2006 with A certain observations. 2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: Appellant Nos.2 to 10 are private GSM cellular B operators and the first appellant is their Association. They have been issued licences by the Central Government, Department of Telecommunication (hereinafter referred to as 'Do T') under Section 4 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to establish, maintain and operate cellular mobile telephone services/unified access c services in their respective service areas. The first respondent is Regulatory Authority established under Section 3 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'TRAI Act'). 3. The first respondent-Authority issued a directive dated D 27'h Februal)'., 2006 wherein appellants - private mobile service providers in the four States of Maharashtra, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh were directed to discontinue differential tariffs levied in the aforesaid four States for calls E terminating in the network of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BSNL')/Mahanagar Telephone Ni9am Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'MTNL') as compared to calls terminating in the network of other private operators in another citing it to be discriminatory and inco
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.