LexUNION OF INDIA versus MIS. MILLENIUM MUMBAI BROADCAST PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA
A
v.
MIS. MILLEN!UM MUMBAI BROADCAST PVT. LTD.
APRIL 28, 2006
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.]
B
Telecommunication Law:
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997: Sections 14 and 17. C
FM broadcasting service-Grant of licence-Default in payment of
licence fee-Revocation of licence and encashment of bank guarantee-A
notice inviting tenders was issued by the Government of India from the
companies registered in India for the grant of licence to operate FM
. broadcasting service-One of the successful bidders was granted the licence D
· and was required to co-locate the transmission infrastructure on a common
transmitter tower and also was required to share the cost of creating the
common infrastructure-Five bidders defaulted-Having regard to the default
on the part of the said five bidders, the cost of co-locating on a common
transmission tower for the remaining five licensees was almost doubled- E
Therefore, the licensor issued guidelines permitting the five licensees to
broadcast from interim independent facilities for an interim period, during
which period the five licensees were required to set up a common transmission
tower-The licensee paid the licence fees and also furnished a Bank
Guarantee but did not pay the licence fee for the subsequent year-The
licensor without communicating to the licensee as to whether its request to F
extend the time for deposit of the said amount was accepted or no.t revoked
the licence and, thereafter, invoked the Bank Guarantee and encashed the
same-The High Court directed the licensor to permit the licensee to broadcast
untilfurther orders-The Tel{!com Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal,
upon examining the relevant clauses of the licence, held that the action on G
the part of the licensor revoking the licence of the licensee was illegal-
Correctness of-Held: Licensor may encash and forfeit the bank guarantee
furnished by the licensee without giving any notice-However, for the purpose
of revocation of the licence either on the ground of default on the part of the
licensee to pay the consideration in respect of the licence or for breach of
587
H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. I S.C.R.
A the conditions of licence, 30 days' notice as also an opportunity of hearing
was imperative-Hence, revocation of licence without issuing a notice is a
nullity.
B
A notice inviting tenders was issued by the Government of India from
the companies registered in India for the grant of licence to operate FM
broadcasting service. The respondent was one of the successful bidders along
with four others. In terms of the agreement, the holders of ten licences were
required to co-locate the transmission infrastructure on a common
transmitter tower and also were required to share the cost of creating the
common infrastructure. Five licensees who were successful bidders in the
C auction process defaulted and did not sign the agreements for grant of licences.
Having regard to the default on the part of the said five bidders, the cost of co-
locating on a common transmission tower for the remaining five licensees
was almost doubled. The appellant, therefore, issued guidelines permitting
the five licensees to broadcast from interim independent facilities for an
D interim period, during which period the five licensees were required to set
up a common transmission tower. The respondent paid the licence fees and
also furnished a Bank Guarantee. But the respondent did not pay the requisite
licence fee for the subsequent year. The appellant without communicating to
the respondent as to whether its request to extend the time for deposit of the
said amount was accepted or not revoked the licence and, thereafter, invoked
E the Bank Guarantee and encashed the same.
The High Court directed the appellant to permit the respondent to
broadcast until further orders. The Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate
Tribunal, upon examining the relevant clauses of the licence, held that the
F action on the part of the appellant revoking the licence of the respondent was
illegal. Hence the appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The licence granted in favour of the respondent is a statutory
G one. The terms and conditions thereof are governed by the statutory provisions.
[597-BJ
1.2. The terms and conditions could not be complied with in view of the
relocation of the same power transmitter, utilization of common transmitterExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.