LexTATA TELESERVICES LTD. versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
8
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 308
TATA TELESERVICES LTD.
V.
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5850 of 2005 etc.)
APRIL 30, 2008
[S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.]
Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges
Regulation 2003- Access Deficit Charges (ADC)- Levy of -
c On the services which fall in the category of WLL(M) - Levy
on the services provided under 'Walky' treating the same as
WLL{M) - Pursuant to Circular by TRAI directing service
providers to comply with Premises Specific Restrictions (PSR)
and
the
directives
issued
by
Department
of
D Telecommunication (Do T) - Challenged on the ground that
the service in question has been reclassified by the Circular
of TRAI, altering the terms and conditions of the Licence under
which the service was taken; and that classification was without
authority and unilateral - Held: The services under 'Walky'
having limited mobility falls in the category of WLL(M) service
E -The service providers were providing WLL(M) services
during the relevant period in the garb of FWA WLL{F)- Hence,
Access Deficit Charges (ADC) is leviable for the relevant
period- The Circular issued by TRAI is clarificatory and not
amendatory- It has not reclassified 'Wa/ky' as WLL(M) for thf!
F first time and thus does not alter the terms and conditions of
the Unified Access Service (UAS) Licence- It was issued in
accordance with law - In view of the technology aspect and
policy framework for levy of ADC, there is no uni/ateralism-
G
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997- ss. 11 and 13.
Respondent (BSNL) demanded Access Deficit
Charges (ADC) from the appellant for the period
14.11.2004 to 26.8.05 in respect of its service provided
under its brand name 'Walky'. Appellant opposed the
H I
308
y
, _
TATA TELESERVICES LTD. v. BHARAT SANCHAR
309
NIGAM LTD. AND ORS.
--
'(
demand on the ground that 'Walky' is a fixed wireless A
phone WWL(F), having portability as its feature and hence
could not be classified as WWL(M). Appellant raised the
dispute before Telecom Disputes Settlement and
Appellate Tribunal wherein it was held that 'Walky' calls
~
attracted ADC under the regulatory regime. Hence the
B
present appeal.
Appellant contended interalia that the respondent had
no authority to impose ADC liability unilaterally on the
appellants by classifying the instrument as a mobile
phone; that the demand was misconceived as the dispute c
regarding its classification was subjudice before the
authority; that 'Walky' as an instrument is portable, not
mobile and therefore could not be classified as WWL(M);
that Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) by the
-(
Circular dated 4.3.2003 has reclassified 'Walky' as WLL(M) D
'\ j.
and thereby has amended the terms and conditions of
UAS Licence and Telecommunication Interconnection
~
Usage Charges Regulation 2003 (IUC Regulations).
'
Respondent-BSNL contended interalia that there E
was no unilateralism in the demand made by BSNL, as
the same was made only after the TRAI and the
Department of Technology (DoT) had issued the Circular
dated 4.3.2003 and Directives dated 23.3.2005 and
".
26.8.2005, respectively; that compliance of the Order/
~· >
....
Directive of DoT dated 26.8.2005 by the appellant,
F
indicates that even according to the appellants, ADC was
payable in respect of the service, i.e., WLL(M) and,
therefore, it was not correct to say that ADC could not be
charged without change in the conditions of licence or
2003 Regulations.
G
->
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD 1.1 The services of the appellants vide the
instrument 'Walky' falls in the category of WLL(M) service
and, accordingly, the appellants would be liable to pay
H
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 7 S.C.R.
y
~
A Access Deficit Charges (ADC) in that regard during the
relevant period ie. 14.11.2004 to 26.8.2005. [Para 49]
[364-A, B]
........
1.2 Directive dated 4.3.2005 by Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India (TRAI) was issued to all access
i'<•.r•
B
)-
providers. The said directive came to be issued as it was
brought to the notice of TRAI that new terminals were
being deployed by access providers which terminals do
not have any fixed network access point physically located
at the address of the subscriber. In the said Circular, TRAI
c noted that fixed wireless services were required to be
provided through fixed wireless terminals with the
location of the networExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.