Miss Lucy
← All judgments

DISHNET WIRELESS LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA

Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal18 June 2012HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA, CHAIRPERSON HON BLE MR. P.K.RASTOGI, MEMBER

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The interim order on partial payment of penalty is confined to the category of violations it expressly identifies. Where a related petition has been finally decided, the parties are bound by that final order, and an interim direction expressed to apply "as a matter of principle" must be read with it. Where an interim order expressly limits partial relief to specified categories and states that no other category has been considered, it is not ambiguous, and the Tribunal will not extend it to other categories. The Tribunal will not examine, on an application for clarification or enforcement, whether a party is better or worse off under an interim order. Absent an application for review of the interim order, the position as clarified stands.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHIDated 18th June, 2012Petition No.70 of 2012Dishnet Wireless Ltd. …PetitionerVs.Union of India …RespondentPetition No.71 of 2012Vodafone Spacetel Ltd. …PetitionerVs.Union of India …RespondentPetition No.72 of 2012Reliance Telecom Ltd. …PetitionerVs.Union of India …RespondentPetition No.15 of 2012(M.A.No.16 of 2012)Cellular Operators Association of India & Ors. …PetitionersVs.Union of India & Anr. …RespondentsPetition No.25 of 2012Dishnet Wireless Ltd. …PetitionerVs.Union of India …RespondentPetition No.26 of 2012Vodafone Spacetel Ltd. …PetitionerVs.Union of India …RespondentPetition No.27 of 2012Bharti Airtel Ltd. …PetitionerVs.Union of India …RespondentPetition No.28 of 2012Bharti Hexacom Ltd. …PetitionerVs.Union of India …RespondentPetition No.29 of 2012Idea Cellular Ltd. …PetitionerVs.Union of India …RespondentPetition No.41 of 2012(M.A.No.40 of 2012)Reliance Telecom Ltd. …PetitionerVs.Union of India …RespondentBEFORE:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B.SINHA, CHAIRPERSONHON’BLE MR. P.K.RASTOGI, MEMBERFor Petitioner : Mr.Navin Chawla,AdvocateMr.Manjul Bajpai,AdvocateMs.Manali Singhal,AdvocateMs.Harshita Verma,AdvocateMs.Nupur Pallavi,AdvocateMr.Santosh Sachin,AdvocateMs.Nidhi Parashar,AdvocateFor Respondent : Mr.A.S.Chandhiok,ASGMs.Maneesha Dhir,AdvocateMr.K.P.S.Kohli,AdvocateMr.Abhishek Kumar,AdvocateMr.T.S.Nanda,AdvocateP.K. Rastogi, Member

O R D E R

Mr. K.P.S. Kohli, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent mentioned to the Tribunal that the petitioners did not comply with the directions of this Tribunal issued on 13.03.2012. Therefore, the respondent would like to enforce the demand for the penalty imposed by it against the petitioners.

2. Mr. Navin Chawla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners stated that they have paid 25% of the penalty imposed by the respondent after implementing the order of the TDSAT in Petition No. 252 of 2011.

3. Mr. Kohli contended that the Tribunal in its order dated 13.03.2012 had ordered that as an interim measure only 25% of the penalty relating to failed CAF forms based on photo identity issued by Village Panchayat Head and Caste and Domicile certificate with photo issued by State Government activated between 20.7.2010 to 31.03.2011 shall be payable. Further, the penalty due to failed CAF forms due to any other reason will have to be paid in full.

4. Mr. Chawla, on the other hand, contended that 25% of the amount should be calculated for the failed CAF forms due to any reasons. He pointed out that on 06.02.2012, this Tribunal had ordered as below :

“We are of the view that each petition requires detailed examination after filing of reply by the respondent. However, keeping in view the interest of both the parties into consideration, we are of the opinion that interest of justice will be sub-served if the petitioners are directed to pay the 25% of the penalty imposed by the respondent within a period of one week. This order would, however, be subject to any other or further order which may be passed by the Tribunal.”

5. The petitioners, however, filed another M.A. 69 of 2012 in Petition No. 25 of 2012 seeking clarification on our aforementioned order in view of our order in Petition No. 252 of 2011. Accordingly, on 28.02.2012 and on 13.03.2012, we clarified/modified our order in following terms:

“Therefore, it is directed that our orders dated 18.5.2011 and 03.6.2011 passed in Petition No. 252 of 2011 will be applicable to these petitions as a matter of principle and only 25% of the penalty relating to failed CAF forms based on photo identity issued by Village Panchayat Head and Caste and Domicile certificate with photo issued by State Government activated between 20.7.2010 to 31.03.2011 shall be payable as an interim measure. However, this order will be subject to the final order in these petitions as well as in Petition No. 252 of 2011.”

6. At present, Petition No. 252 of 2011 has been disposed of finally. Therefore, both the parties are bound by that order. We have mentioned there clearly that 25% of the penalty related to the violations based on photo identity issued by Village Panchayat Head and Caste and Domicile certificate with photo issued by State Government activated between 20.7.2010 to 31.03.2011 shall be payable.

7. We do not find any ambiguity in the order. We have considered to provide partial relief as an interim measure with regard to penalty imposed due to failed CAF forms related to photo identity issued by Village Panchayat Head and Caste and Domicile certificate with photo issued by State Government. No other certificate has been considered. So there is no ambiguity in the order. However, Mr. Chawla appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that after getting the clarification on Tribunal’s order dated 6.2.2012, he will be worst off than the relief he got it earlier.

8. We are of the view that we have clarified the position as it stands. The petitioner never came to the Tribunal for review of our interim order. We cannot look into the aspect whether the party to the lis is well off or worst off. However, the hearing of these petitions will be expedited.

9. Reply to the petitions be filed within 10 days from date. Rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed by 5.7.2012.

10. Put up the matter on 10.07.2012 for hearing.

……………….. (S.B. Sinha) Chairperson

……………….. (P.K.Rastogi) Member /NC/

Connected matters

Decided by the same order

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free