DISHNET WIRELESS LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA
- Case No.TELECOM PETITION/25/2012 (DISHNET WIRELESS LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An interim order of the Tribunal, which applies as a matter of principle to related petitions, is binding on the parties once the principal petition has been finally disposed of, and it remains subject to the final orders in those related petitions. Interim relief granting a reduced payment of penalty (25%) is confined to penalties for failed CAF forms based on the specified categories of identity or domicile documents, activated within the specified period. Penalties for failed CAF forms arising from any other reason are payable in full. Where the terms of an interim order are clear and expressly limited to particular categories, no further clarification is needed, and the Tribunal will not extend the relief to categories it did not consider. A party's complaint that an interim order leaves it worse off than an earlier direction is not a ground for clarification. The Tribunal does not weigh whether a party is better or worse off under its orders, and the party's remedy lies in seeking review or modification of the interim order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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
- DISHNET WIRELESS LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA18 June 2012
- VODAFONE SPACETEL LTD Vs UNION OF INDIA18 June 2012
- RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. ( KARNATAKA) Vs UNION OF INDIA18 June 2012
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