LOOP TELECOM AND TRADING LIMITED versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 03-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
329
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 329
329
LOOP TELECOM AND TRADING LIMITED
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1447-1467 of 2016)
MARCH 03, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT
AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Telecommunication: Contract Act, 1872 – ss.65, 23, 56 –
Unified Access Service Licenses (UASL) – 2G Spectrum – Illegal
Allocation – Claim for Refund of Entry Fee – In the instant case,
the appellant applied for grant of UASL for 21 service areas – In
the meantime, the Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v Union
Of India declared the policy of the Union for allocation of 2G
spectrum as illegal holding that such policy was arbitrary in nature
as it provided allocation on the basis of “First Come First Serve”
and therefore opened the door of biasness – On the basis of the
said judgment the appellant sought relief of refund of Entry Fee
before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal
basing the plea that the allocation was in the nature of the contract
and the same has become void in the light of the aforesaid judgment
and hence the appellant is entitled to recourse u/ss.65, 23 &56 of
Contract Act – The Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s plea on the
ground that the quashing of the appellant’s license in the aforesaid
judgment cannot be equated with the UASL agreement becoming
void within the meaning of s.65 and also that the same has not
become void u/ss.23 and 56 of the Act – The tribunal further held
that since the appellant was at pari delicto hence could not claim
refund of Entry Fee – On appeal, held – The appellant was in pari
delicto with the Department of Telecommunication, the 2G spectrum
allocation exercise of which was held illegal, arbitrary and
constitutionally infirm by the court in the above referred judgment
– Further since the appellant was at fault hence could not claim
recourse to s. 65 of the Act – Also that the appellant was party in
the above referred case and despite knowing the fact that the Court
in such case was to quash the process of allocation and award of
the licenses in which it did not claim refund of Entry Fee and hence
could not be allowed to raise such plea in the present case.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997: ss.14, 15,
16, 18 – Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal –
Jurisdiction – Scope and Extent – The jurisdiction of civil courts
has been ousted by s.15 – s.16 enables the TDSAT to regulate its
own procedure, guided by the principles of natural justice – An
appeal on a substantial question of law lies to Supreme Court under
s.18 of the TRAI Act – TDSAT was a creature of statute and was
empowered to determine its jurisdiction, subject to the constraints
stipulated in the statute – s.14, as such, does not put any constraints
on the jurisdiction of the TDSAT – Telecommunication.
Contract Act, 1872 – ss. 20, 56, 65 – Scope – The expression
“discovered to be void” u/s.20 comprehend a situation in which
parties were suffering from a mistake of fact from the very beginning
but had not realized at the time of entering into the agreement or
signing of the documents that they were suffering from any such
mistake and had therefore acted bona fide while entering into such
agreements – The word “impossible” u/s 56 has to be construed in
its practical sense and not just in its literal sense – s.65 does not
operate in derogation of the maxim in pari delicto potior est conditio
possidentis – The application of s.65 has to be limited to those cases
were the party claiming restitution itself was not in pari delicto.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The decision of this Court in CPIL, which was
rendered on 2 February 2012, arose from petitions under Article
32 of the Constitution. The petitions questioned the grant of
UASLs to the private respondents in those proceedings (which
included the appellant), on the ground that the procedure which
was adopted by DoT was arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article
14 of the Constitution. This Court held that an auction conducted
after due publicity was perhaps the best method for fulfilling the
constitutional requirement of preserving equity in the alienation
of natural resources. In the absence of such a mechanism, this
Court held that alienation of natural resources/public property is
likely to be misused by unscrupulous people who are only
interested in garnering maximum financial benefit and have no
respect for const

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