DISHNET WIRELESS LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA
- Case No.TELECOM PETITION/70/2012 (DISHNET WIRELESS LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA) [#105041]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a petition raises facts and issues similar to those already before the Tribunal in another petition, the Tribunal will issue similar interim orders in it, applying the earlier orders as a matter of principle. Pending a detailed examination of the petition after the respondent's reply, the Tribunal may protect the parties' interests by directing the petitioner to pay 25% of the penalty as an interim measure, without prejudice to any further order. Within that interim direction, only 25% of the penalty relating to failed customer application forms supported by photo identity issued by a village panchayat head, or by a caste and domicile certificate with photograph issued by the State Government, and activated between 20.07.2010 and 31.03.2011, is payable, subject to the final orders in the petition and in Petition No. 252 of 2011.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
O R D E R
These petitions have been filed to challenge the demand notices received by it for the North East Service Area in terms of our directions dated 06.02.2012 passed in Petition No. 15 of 2012 (COAI Vs Union of India & Anr) and other connected matters, wherein we had directed as follows : “ Idea Cellular, Vodafone, Dishnet and Reliance Communication have filed only one petition. The petitions filed by the aforementioned operators shall be confined to the State of Assam only. If the licensees intend to question the penalty imposed by the respondent on them in respect of North-Eastern states, they may file separate petitions.”
2. In our order dated 06.02.2012, we had further directed that : “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.”
3. The matter again came up before this Tribunal for clarification of our order dated 06.02.2012 by way of Miscellaneous Applications being M.A. No. 69 of 2012 in Petition No. 25 of 2012 (Dishnet Wireless Vs UOI and other connected matters) filed by the petitioners herein and this Tribunal has clarified on 28.02.2012 in the following terms: “10. Therefore, we would like to clarify our orders dated 18.5.2011 and 03.6.2011 passed in Petition No. 252 of 2011 will be applicable to these petitions also as a matter of principle and furthermore, 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 shall be payable as an interim measure. 11. However, this order will be subject to the final order in these petitions as well as in Petition No. 252 of 2011.”
4. As the facts and issues raised in these petitions are similar to Petition No. 15 of 2012, we are of the opinion that similar orders may be issued in these cases also.
5. 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.
……………….. (S.B. Sinha) Chairperson
……………….. (P.K.Rastogi) Member /NC/
Connected matters
Decided by the same order
- VODAFONE SPACETEL LTD Vs UNION OF INDIA13 March 2012
- RELIANCE TELECOM LTD Vs UNION OF INDIA13 March 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